ED 095 988

AUTHORTITLE

INSTITUTION

SPONS AGENCY

BUREAU NOPUB DATEGRANTNOTE

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

IDENTIFIERS

ABSTRACT

DOCUMENT RESUME

PS 007 385

Jacoby, LivaThe Clarifying Environments Program: A Case Study ofa University - "Outreach" Project.Pittsburgh Univ., Pa. University Urban InterfaceProgram.Office of Education (DHEN), Washington, D.C. Bureauof Research.BR-8-0725Jun 73OEG-29-480725-102753p.

MF-$0.75 HC-$3.15 PLUS POSTAGEAdministrative Problems; Administrator Attitudes;Caucasians; Community Involvement; *DisadvantagedYouth; *Elementary School Students;Interinstitutional Cooperation; *LearningLaboratories; Negroes; *Outreach Programs;Paraprofessional School Personnel; Parent Attitudes;Program Development; *Program Evaluation; ResearchProblemsCEP; *Clarifying Environments Program

This report describes and evaluates the ClarifyingEnvironments Program (CEP), an innovative attempt by the Universityof Pittsburgh to improve educational environments in the communitythrough university-community interface. The first part of the palerpresents the goals, theory, and history behind CEP. ImplementatiJn ofCFP learning labs for elementary school children in disadvantagedcommunity areas is explained in terms of the financial assistance,administrative work, and community and institutional cooperationrequired. Children ranging in age from preschool through third gradeattended these labs for a half-hour each day of the week. To make CEPa community program, community leaders were consulted, and severalindigenous community residents were trained as paraprofessional labworkers. Both the 1971 and 1972 evaluations of the program wereaffected by research or administrative problems, and the results aredifficult to accurately define. The second part of the Leportanalyzes the development of CEP. Topics discussed include: (1) theinstitution-building model; (2) general and specific goals; (3)

working relationships and problems between CEP, its director and theschool board officials, school staff, Model Cities Program, communityand black leaders; (4) CEP leadership and internal structure; (5)

resources; (6) personnel; and t7) conclusions. (SDH)

... . ...,._

'' L .;... ' '.!::'; ., ",'..- 3 . -. / I' },,4 .- i'.5 '..,

. . ,'.. \ '' ' ',. "'It Q .''..i''' '."'.... ''.'..''''.. . .

. ,I. IJI.':;.. V ,;,,..y., !. t: ,..., '--: ,.. .,4v,., .,-.,--4,...

k....-:,:,.4;;;, s,-- ,-. ,

' ;IV.' ..,;..).),.: ...., . .4,'. ,';;'..7.,1e.' ,.. .. , ..- .f: ',s :, ?... iss-',r ,;, ...-. , 4- c,..1q'4,' Hi' ..t '. - ! , ,, 1 -.. 'l.' li,Y; I., i'" ,'I' ' 1.1fi:: ,- .,',,,,4,' ! kz!.,:- ;I% '.4'..." ';' -- ' ; ,,' *ik. .'' .. ''. ....i1.1 C.I.,1 ' v *I. l'' .. k :' .1--A -",&.-t; ;:Isi. :.; r i'li: 1.',.. 4!.---'; `r.;.V ;1.t- -'`.-4' f '1" "..". ' ' '' 4. 1' ' ' '"'' t4 '- ...9 ESk 't .. ' -....1 I ..., - .1. 'ti 4 kte-) \ ; . ... ,:-.1." ;;,.. . .4. 51 . %x.14-1. , . ',.. .-

i 6- , , _"is..) *

1 .

. ' ..( ;', 4 j'',;'"*- , ,',; ... .1'',**-'.. - .0 . V i .` ." , .1. +- ,. ...: :, , "j''.'.',19:*. :1 '.., ,..', . .,.114....';. ',..- ',- 1 1Z 'gl".,'/ 14 '-. ''14.-. ',..";,':-'?Y1 ':i't

')i- " :( '. '' - 4 i' .. ' ';',,' ...1... '-' i'.i. ''.. ... ....; -`11.;74 , " , 1 -,: ,! '

I... '5 '.. .' 1 ..&L.,W i'''..- !c`-: 7 ;; 1,:' .;::..-s.. ..*:! ' .r.t.,1

;""ei, .

e 40,t-i-4 ,i; ),

I' S 011 P.M I tol hi 4 tet Al It'tt Al .5.4 It AI i I 411.1 I IN.1, *4Itli.11

44,4

, , l';..,....,`....,_*; ........:..4..tc-1,-;,...:1:.,...'..:,,,-.5,..:.,

.. ,.... tz .. , . ,.....,,,,,1;,,-,,yi,-,;,,,.;,..:,,,,-,, , A .. , .,.....1t.,::,-,.1.-..,.,, ..,: ;:t!..;-4,; . 1. ,,...- -.. ; ''. ..',, , y-: , --.,,- 'AI ... , . .- -s....,,.-

4.4 ,..i,,.4A.!..-.. '-CLAitI

...,w..ig: 6i.,:kt.:,,-, . .-- ..

ItVIR. E

,.

4, . , , ....q .. ,..., ;:.,1,-,444'.,,,v,._ A4;

.:5.4.1.,.1,...,.:.,;.:-..,.-,.; ..,...,,,(c:, ..',,,,,:'., -5;

'SI\,,'N',,, -. -:,.., . ,. '..; ''. '4'.,,., .'.s'.,..t

. i

z.i:;';'

.".,...'(;,1',N'..i..,s.4i.,1,-.?,..---,..:' ,,,...;1, ,

'-..,. 1. t ...I-1. (,4:`...!:

s .. '''' ' '.: 'A , .1;s. .5:.. ..' .. is.0 .1 ...:** 4-,... ..I'''-.SC.',...1 ... 3 t, * 1 e ,iy -44-.r.i;,-,

?.; .. ..,. .

. '.',...1:5,1:-. =".-. -'-.',,',1 '''; -; 41 -.4.., ;. A .,. . 4 ;'. ''''*' 4 ' 1 .i.-..jY.,--::- -- 1 '!".I.:. . .1 a

-.

.

.2 . ,,;;.,,I,,,i,,;':, ,;;;) .k.-; ,'' ' -:!- "",;!:,';'!"'

4

t, \

:. .: , i , . t. "V. 1 j' ' \ r. tr .. ks .*-

... .

SS

.'41-' -A ; -.4..:-:, s' .,..... : ,4

4,0

'',.:!:-..iI;:

t. . 2 'T .:.'k ,1'/.'.i.:C.4.:,.'....';::,0. .

t :-'4 ..:kk'' ,- -,!. ;,.. 'I'' '..t: . IA4

'.41 '.. :1 t. ../ .C. .

...:. SUNIVER,--,- --- ,..--..ti4,7:-,. .1,

. ..; I ;

4 (-1

1;14-s:4:bre? ...

-4

, '

.,1' e.

,

". .

!.!''''t.111.5".".,!k3

: 41:;j1c,i1.).?... 1:'::,,,_"--'

; - ',;;"-' ..1,:tt. :. :..:;......./s:..:,,,.,,,,-... ....,:i.;,%;

,..;' .i--,--ii -.- 7.. ig...k. ., * ..t ,, .,

NI ''',1 ' ''.-,',.sik'i.k..0. ,ik,-.

,:.-....,.,..4,:.

'r4. 44

4,s.v.i..tiss

';':',,..',t,,

N', ii.',1,.',;;: ;*(1"-.,'.'"44% ..1

.r..,,t. -16 tt?,.

I ,

'1

' 1,,,

k".2

.

." .

t01411tACt

, .titneOct.,! -;:... !...';.'-k).,,t41- );3.. -

; . ,t., . . . 411;, .1.. . ,

*44!

4 '.

. ... . . . . , . .. -':-.t . 1, A --, , 4:vs,!;!... !z 1 ;.... '11 '.,- .c ;, i 4 .I.,- if 8. :.-.. le.../:,.a I- ,;.1, rti-,i..,., ,

e i ...-.=. "I .. .:' . ., 4,14 i' 5I's. ' ' C. 7: V.I.i.;:i4.iiF ,:. '. ''';ezi,*; 3I.

. . '';?tz .'.-: I;. : ; : , ;t-A 'i: P . -

1 ; ' ,". , ',..:'t L .

.

).. .

:.,,,.

...:, ;. ;

,

.4.4 ;;i.s

Is

k.........,..4..,. ".:.,..0.44's44 #,1-. -I., :', v'4 A._%N.-:}'."4. ;IX.``.......'".

. . 1, . ' .!)4.;,V. ,, ' ..' ,

e . ' .. . . ' . i'.... ' .._, ',,,,q',"' ...... , 4.... :t'.:' :.'i1,:,..!

.4 .4' 44v .) F ,,;:..4i.1 ,4 ''p -;Nq -

.4.5 -"-t 11%1 ;:i

;

otlt

4.44.=4.4.; 134." ' 0444:;':4 :c; `,N.. "P.') '41.

, .

-_se

"16"11.41" "."; 1 :-':;:i

:-24".;cisi=t1.1;,t

-v'

,-:I.,.

4' r;;:` 't '.? 04. 4.V 41'4

f!''s, 4"..;. .

'. O111110117THIE SEcRETARY . 4.-r!. !,!.! f4P: ?AA

t4''kei;? .

,, 3;.q4, 4- .,It2.

JUNE* 19Th 3. ';-

4.44+

UNIVERSITY ort SMURGH , 41A.

:,?; , . '4. 11. \

.; I.,'7.e. A ..r, : 1:.''' .. ` '1-

I

V;.i. '4 '.., 01 -t ` '",. '' .. 4i -1. '.-. '4T.. -..0A2gi..

. 4

1 , . ... .I.:

N0,'., ...

-'. '''''

,....r.1 C.:. ' 'ic

I.,. -4 .. 4;::' . -S .5 . ' ;

..,... ih - '. -'. ;) "'144, .,. . ,f, , '..i.. -,. ..fl, ...' ,,Ps'''.:

'4,,&.ilis' I.

,11'1. .r.',111,. .',.- 4.';''' .' ."' '!.:4.,: ..... ,} . .

...* - '. s

...: . ', t : . . . : -":

.... 3. '

s`.;1

,..i(:4

,4 '' i '1

... . .; . ; : .:r, ;.;:v1-5.,

..; t.:,;: 4.\1'g,..i.if'4' . : c!'.; _:-.. . s.....,"?: ';.!*".4-- ',,WO.,-

-kI.1;..

. .

4.5 .

..

s., ; Avt; ,;,

;\.. . .Y

THE CLARIFYING ENVIRONMENTS PROGRAM

A Case Study of a University - "Outreach" Project

by

Liva Jacoby

June, 1973

Research Affiliates:Barbara Jameson, Ph.D.Susan Smerd

UUIP-CEP liaisons:Tim EllisLisa McNeil

This paper was prepared under theauspices of the University-UrbanInterface Program; Principal In-vestigator, Albert C. Van Dusen,Secretary of the University; Di-rector, Robert C. Brictson, Ph.D.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

INTRODUCTION 1

PART I: THE CLARIFYING ENVIRONMENTS PROGRAM - BRIEF DESCRIPTIONOF GOALS, THEORY, AND HISTORY IN PITTSBURGH

Goals and Theory 3

Description of a Clarifying EnvironmentsLaboratory 3

History of the Clarifying EnvironmentsProgram in Pittsburgh 4

A Clarifying Environments Lab at the Uni-versity of Pittsburgh 5

A Clarifying Environments Lab at LetscheSchool 5

Expansion of CEP 7

1971 Evaluation of CEP 8

Model Cities Withdrawal of Funds 9

1972 Evaluation of CEP 10

CEP 1972-73 11

1

PART II: ANALYSIS OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CLARIFYING ENVIRONMENTSPROGRAM IN PITTSBURGH

The Institution-Building Model 15

General Goals 16

Specified Goals 17

Program 19

Leadership and Internal Structure 24

Resources 26

Personnel 29

Table of Contents, Coned.

PAGE

Summary and Conclusions 29

APPENDICES

I. Explication of Theories Relating to theClarifying Environments Program 33

II. The Use of the Institution-Building Modelfor University-Urban Interface Research 37

REFERENCES 45

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to thank Dr. Barbara Jameson of UUIP for her helpfulsupervision and participation in this research project, and Susan Smerdof CEP for providing me with valuable data. I am also grateful to Dr.Martha Baum, and Dr. Robert Brictson for their insightful editorial andcritical comments. Dr. Omar K. Moore of CEP and Dr. Mary Molyneaux ofthe Board of Education merit special thanks for their cooperation. I

also wish to thank Linda Wykoff for typing the various drafts of the re-port. Of course, I alone am responsible for any errors of fact or inter-pretation.

INTRODUCTION

As the need to find solutions to urban ills has grown, so has thepressure on major urban universities, by their constituencies, to contri-bute to the improvement of the urban environments. This has been thecase with the University of Pittsburgh, located in an urban communityfaced with the problems usually associated with large urban areas. Sincehis appointment in 1967, Chancellor Posvar has advocated that "theUniversity would acquire a higher order of public responsibility". Thenew directions have been reflected in the design of courses and programsrelating to urban development and in the University's budget commitments.

As the universities have become more involved in urban affairs,much discussion has arisen as to the possible roles the universitiesshould play in the community. IL an attempt to find answers to some ofthe questions, the University of Pittsburgh responded by submitting aproposal to the U.S. Office of Education for a study of Pitt's inter-face with the community. In 1970, the University-Urban Interface Program(UUIP) was funded for this purpose, with the hope that the researchfindings would prove helpful for Pitt's and other universities' designof community relations.

One of UUIP's research focuses has been on the University's activitieswithin the area of Minority and Community Services. Four so-called"Outreach Projects", representing University-based projects being imple-mented in the community, were selected for study, with primary focus onrelations between the University, and community agencies and groups.

One of the four projects was the Clar &fying Environments Program(CEP). It was selected because it provided an opportunity to study thetransition from a University laboratory to'community schools, and achance to study how concepts and practice developed in a more controlledenvironment fared when embodied in an operational school system. Thetransition meant not only the implementation of a theoretical programbut an organizational interface as well. Thus, the program entailed amove from the University to the community, from research to application,and multiple organizational administration, mixing the University, thePittsburgh Model Cities Agency, the Board of Education, and privatesources of support.

CEP is an innovative program which focuses on the improvement ofeducational environments. It was introduced in Pittsburgh in 1965,when its developer and director, Dr. O. K. Moore, joined the Universityof Pittsburgh as a Professor of Psychology. In 1971, the program wasimplemented in a Pittsburgh public school.

CEP operations represent the application of University expertise inthe community. In our study of the transactions between the Universityand the community, UUIP research staff have chronicled CEP's development

2.

in Pittsburgh over a period of two years (1971-72). Research has focusedon the analysis and comparison of factors which have impeded or facilitatedthe transition of CEP from a University setting into the community as partof the public school system. CEP's development has been studied both interms of its internal organization and its ways of relating to the communityand the University. Our study attempts to chronicle and interpret thecomplex issues that evolved, without making judgments as to the qualityor cost-effectiveness of the educational innovation itself.

Various methods were used for gathering information about CEP.During the course of the study, three CEP staff members provided CEP-UUIPliaison. The first two participant observers submitted periodic reportsabout CEP activities during a period of one and one-half years. The thirdanalyst completed a more comprehensive report on the program. Two membersof the UUIP research team conducted numerous interviews with Dr. Moore andother project members, as well as with individuals and representatives ofgroups and organizations connected with CEP, such as the Board of Education,Model Cities, and the University's Learning Research and Development Center.Project memos, proposals, published articles and correspondence providedadditional information.

This report has two parts. The first is brief description of CEPand a history of its activities in Pittsburgh. In the second part, CEP'sinstitutional development is analyzed within the framework of the Institu-tion-Building Model, which is briefly outlined on pages 14-15 and fullydescribed in Appendix II.

PART I

THE CLARIFYING ENVIRONMENTS PROGRAM:

Brief Description of Goals, Theory and History

in

Pittsburgh

26i

PART I

The Clarifying Environments Program- -Brief Description of Goals, Theory

and Its History in Pittsburgh

Dr. M are's primary interest is in theories of human problem-solvingand social interaction with emphasis on learning processes and educationalenvironments. In this framework, he has developed innovative tools andlaboratories stressing improvements in education generally and programsfor members of disadvantaged groups.

Four basic theoretical principles have governed Dr. !bore's designof a "clarifying educational environment". (1) The Perspectives Principleis based on the assumption that a person can learn most effectively byapproaching what is to be learned from more than one perspective. In

the traditional classroom, the student usually takes the role of thepatient, listening to the teacher-agent. In a Clarifying EnvironmentsLaboratory (CEL), the student learns by adopting also the "agent's",the "referee's", and the "reciprocal perspective". (2) The AutotelicPrinciple is based on Dr. Moore's theory that learning can be done bestif it can be enjoyed for its own sake, rather than the learner beingdependent on rewards and punishments. (3) The Productive Principleconsiders learning to be more productive if the substance learned hasproperties which allow the learner to reason things out for himselfthrough making deductions and inferences. (4) The PersonalizationPrinciple operates on the assumption that learning can be more effectiveif the environment is responsive in terms of providing immediate feedbackto the learner, and if it allows him to understand how he learns.

Description of a Clarifying Environments Laboratory*

A clarifying environment is an educational environment designed tohelp clarify for the student what he is doing, and more generally, whatis going on.2 It is so structured as to allow the learner to work at hisown pace, provide immediate feedback about the results of his efforts,and increase the students' likelihood of achieving insights into whatevertask is undertaken. A typical Clarifying Environments Laboratory containsseveral small booths and two slightly larger rooms. In the booths,children can learn quietly and privately, at their awn pace, with thehelp of a booth assistant or by themselves. Booths usually contain a

1For a more extensive description of Dr. Moore's theories, see

Appendix I.

*This section was writtem by Susan S.iterd and edited by Liva Jacoby.

20. K. Moore and A. R. Anderson, "Some Principles for the Design of

Clarifying Educational Environments," Chapter 10 in D. Goslin (ed.)Handbook of Socialization Theory and Research, Chicago, Ill.: Rand McNallyand Company, 1969.

4.

typewriter or a combination of typewriter, tape recorder and a filmstripmachine for reading stories or watching films about black history. In

order to practice math skills, the student uses a desk-top computer inone booth. The Talking Typewriter, a computerized typewriter designedby Dr. Moore, is used in many program centers, but was not part of theapplication in the Pittsburgh schools. It is designed to invite thelearner to explore the system; to provide immediate and clearcut feedbackto the learner about the results of his endeavors; and to encourage thelearner to make use of his capacity for discovering relationships.

In the larger rooms the students can function in groups and competewhile practicing the skills they have been learning in the booths. In

this way, a child has an opportunity to assess himself in relation tothe other students. Competitive pressures, however, are kept to a mini-mum. The learner is encouraged to develop intrinsic motivation. Forthis reason, grades are not given and even praise is offered in smalldoses only.

The students, ranging from pre-school through third grade, attendthe Lab in groups of about 12 for one-half hour daily. Each year anew grade enters the program. It is Dr. Moore's belief that exposureto a Clarifying Environment far the first five years of a child'seducation will provide him with a solid background of basic skills andthus enhance his academic achievement and self-esteem.

Each student is rotated through the different learning experiencesso that in a given week he may have been in five different booths orrooms. Upon arrival in the Lab, the student, if he is participating inan activity that requires typing, goes to a centrally-located table wherehis fingernails are painted to match the color-coded keys on the electrictypewriters. Within five minutes, the lights in the central room areturned off, and any visitor looking into the well-lit booths or roomsthrough the one-way mirrors will see about 12 children working intentlyfor the next 25 to 30 minutes. At the end of the half hour, the centrallights are turned on, a signal that time is up. The children then gatherat the door and are taken upstairs to their classrooms by one of thestaff members.

History of the Clarifying Environments Program in Pittsburgh

During the 1950's, Dr. Moore began to develop and implement histheories of "Clarifying Educational Environments". When he was broughtto the University of Pittsburgh in 1965, he had already begun work ona 20-year research plan and had set up and directed four ClarifyingEnvironments School Laboratories. The Talking Typewriter was alreadyin use in several other settings throughout the country. Thus, Moore hadalready established a reputation as an "innovator" in his field of educa-tional theory and technology. Dr. Moore assumed a professorship in theDepartment of Psychology and became an associate in the University'sLearning Research and Development Center (LR.DC). He also took a positionas a Research Associate in the Philosophy of Science Center.

5.

A Clarifying Environments Laboratory (CEL) at the University of Pittsburgh

The implementation of a laboratory was being planned within the frame-work of LRDC, through which funds from the U. S. Office of Education and Re-sponsive Environments Foundation, Inc. (REF)3 were transmitted.

In planning for the Laboratory, Dr. Moore was in contact with the super-intendent of the Pittsburgh Board of Education, who commissioned the AssistantSuperintendent of Curriculum and Instruction to carry through ttLe plans. Shevisited the school laboratories previously set up by Dr. Moore. An agreementwas made to transport pre-school children from Letsche School to the Lab atthe University. This school was selected because its children come from themost economically-deprived homes in the City. It is located in the blackghetto area - the Hill - adjacent to downtown Pittsburgh. The Hill Districtis Pittsburgh's oldest ghetto area. According to 1970 census figures, itspopulation was 91.3 per cent black. The median income was then $3,430 fora family of four. Half of the area's population received public assistance.

Of 23 children who entered CEP in 1968, only three came from homeswith mother and father living together. The average number of childrenin these homes was between five and six. 4

The Board's responsibility was to make transportation available andto administer tests to the children for evaluative purposes. The School'sPrincipal and parents of the children who were to participate in the pro-gram were invited to information meetings.

The Lab in the Social Sciences Building started its operation in 1968.At this time, additional funds were received from the Jack and Jill ofAmerica Foundation. In addition to two black assistants working in the Lab,six black paraprofessionals were hired during the year. Three white stu-dents volunteered to help in the Lab.

During the second year of operation, both nursery and kindergartenpupils attended the Lab. To help work with the increased number ofchildren, three community people were hired and trained to be both assis-tants and lab supervisors.

A Clarif in: Environments Laboratory at Letsche School

Meanwhile, plans were made to introduce the program in the publicschool system by setting up a lab in Letsche School. Letsche Elementary

CaD School was attended by approximately 420 children. Currently the enrollment

C:11:)

or)3A non-profit organization, Responsive Environments Foundation, Inc.

(REF), was established in 1962 "to apply knowledge gained in the Socialsciences and in the mathematical disciplines to the improvement of edu-cation." Dr. Moore was instrumental in establishing REF, and is theChairman of its Board.

4John A. Carpenter, "Overview," in Academic Competence and Self Esteem,

an evaluation of the Pittsburgh Clarifying Environments Program in theHill District, Part I, September, 1972.

6.

is 170 black studerms. The Lab was to I.:. set up in the School's basement.By having a lab in the school iLselF, th program would be more inter ratedwith the child's regular classroom activities and school environment.

A decision was made to implement the program in the School on a three-year demonstration basis. The cost for remodeling and construction ofthe Lab was to be paid by Board funds, and the equipment by an AnonymousDonor's Fund (administered tnrough the Board of Education). In addition,Dr. Moore received concurrent three-year grants from the Hillman andMellon Foundations starting in 1970, which assured program continuity.

During 1970, the local Model Cities Program developed its plans forprojects, and intereste was expressed in CEP as one of the few innovativeeducation projects in the city. A proposal from Model Cities was sentto the Board, where a contract for a CEP and an LRDC project was signedin October, 1970, for the action year beginning October 1970-71. Fundswere to be used for training and salaries for ten paraprofessionals towork at CEP (consistent with Model Cities priorities to involve communityresidents in its projects), for equipment and for the construction of asecond lab for children from two other ghetto schools. Leaders of theUnited Black Front and other black organizations, who had visited Dr. Moore'slabs in other cities and who had supported his work, gave advice as tothe selection of community residents to be hired as paraprofessionals.The training of community residents in CEP added a new and logical dimen-sion to the program, and it was Dr. Moore's aim to train indigenous .

people as a means to upgrade their education. Seven people were hired,who, together with the three assistants hired previously, made up an allblack paraprofessional staff of ten. In addition, there were two white,volunteer Research Assistants, one black Administrative Assistant, and theAssistant Director, Dr. Moore's wife (white), who had worked In the previousClarifying Environments Laboratories.

As was the case when the University Lab opened, parents of the chil-dren who were to attend the Letsche Lab were invited to a meeting wherethey received information about the program by, among other things, beingshown a film about Lab activities.

When the Letsche Lab opened in January, 1971, children from pre-school up through first grade attended the Lab at the University. Thefirst graders had been attending since the beginning of the program in1968. All the children now transferred to the new Lab located in theSchool. The children were released from their classrooms each day forhalf an hour and were brought to the Lab by CEP staff members. Subjectsof instruction included reading, spelling, typing, and math. A specialcomponent on black notables, described in the film, "Black Excellence",'was developed for black children and was first used for the pupils in theLetsche Lab. It comprised facts about important personalities and eventsin the course of Black American History. Dr. Moore's hypothesis is thatexposure to this will add to the enhancement of the children's self-esteem.

50. K. Moore, Black Excellence, a 16mm sound-color motion picture,

Pittsburgh, Pa.: William Matthews and Company, 1971.

7.

Dr. Moore intended to bring the Letsche School teachers and CEP staffmembers together for meetings to better coordinate Lab and classroom activi-ties. According to a participant observer, however, only a few suchmeetings took place because relations between the CEP staff and the Schoolstaff, including the Principal, had not developed in a positive direction.Dr. Moore indicates that CEP staff made themselves available for informalluncheon discussions on many occasions.

The Lab at the University was used for programs for gifted and fordeaf children. During the Fall of 1971, a "computerized classroom" wasinstalled in that Lab. Dr. Moore's intention was to develop it as atesting and evaluation center in order to evaluate the program objectivelyafter five years of operation.

Expansion of CEP

Both the Model Cities and the Mellon Foundation contracts called forthe implementation of new labs; the former for one in the Hill Districtand the latter for one in a white area economically comparable to that ofLetsche School. Dr. Moore and the Board Assistant Superintendent ofCurriculum and Instruction visited several schools in the city, in searchof suitable space for laboratories. Space was found in a school (Schiller)in a white, lower -class neighborhood on the North Side of the city.The Principal of this School was supportive of the program. The decisionwas made to add a second lab in Letsche School and to bus children therefrom two other elementary schools nearby. Construction of the labsstarted in 1971. Parents of children who were going to learn in the twonew labs were invited to meet with Dr. Moore, school principals, andBoard representatives to be informed about the program.

Dr. Moore's plan was to have high school students help in the labs.An agreement was reached to bring students attending the high school ofthe Letsche district to the Letsche Lab for training as booth assistants.This was to be part of their Family and Personal Development class, andtheir transportation was to be funded by Model Cities. The program was

to be coordinated by one of Dr. Moore's research assistants, The highschool students' reading ability and their self-esteem were to be eval-uated and compared with those of a control group which did not help inthe Lab. In the beginning, many of the high school students came to theLab. Later, however, administrative difficulties in the School's handlingof the program precluded its continu,ALion. CEP staff felt this was dueto the lack of cooperation of the high school's Vice Principal, who didnot support CEP. The Research Assistant later undertook her project atthe University Lab with a group of volunteers from the high school.

During 1971, plans were made to set up an outdoor unit of CEP on alot in the countryside, owned by Responsive Environments Foundation.Another plan concerned a mobile CEP unit, which was designed by Dr. Mooreand engineers from General Motors. Due to lack of funds, these plansdid not materialize.

8.

1971 Evaluation of CEP

According to Dr. Moore, the initial tests which the Board was to ad-minister when the first CEL opened, were never completed. The agreementbetween Model Cities and the Board called for an evaluation of CEP beforethe end of the first action year in September, 1971. One part was com-pleted by the Board's Research Office in the summer of 1971.6 The resultsof the evaluation showed no significant differences on the .05 level inacademic achievement between experimental and control groups. The Board'sresearcher, however, in her report, cautioned against making any conclu-sions or decisions on the basis of the findings, since the studied samplewas too small. She also pointed out that the program might have otherbenefits beyond improvement in academic achievement, and that these bene-fits might ultimately affect the academic performance of the children.

CEP staff and their consultants studied the methods and results ofthe evaluation and challenged the study's validity. Their points ofcriticism included thur following: (1) there was an inadequate match ofthe experimental and control groups; (2) selection of the students to betested was not random; (3) substitute teachers were used as testers; (4)black testers interviewed the control group and white testers the experi-mental group; and (5) some black testers prompted control group studentsin the tests. The match of experimental and control groups was inade-quate since there were 133 children in the 23 experimental-group families,as opposed to 85 in the control group families, and only three intactexperimental group familites as compared to 15 of the families of the con-trol group. The conclusion made by the Board's researcher that the CEPhad no significant effect on inner-city students' academic performancewas therefore perceived as incorrect by CEP staff and their consultants.They felt it could be concluded that a significant achievement had occurredamong the children in the program, since these had been compared to child-ren with what was seen as more "middle class" characteristics, such asintact families and smaller number of children.

Thus, a controversy arose concerning the way the evaluation was con-ducted. Eventually, the relevant Board officials decided to term thestudy "incomplete," but only after it had been presented to Board membersof the Pittsburgh schools as is the procedure with all research studies.According to Dr. Moore, the report was also submitted to Model Cities.

In 1971, Model Cities contracted Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Companyof Philadelphia to conduct au evaluation of Model Cities and its fundedprojects. The study concluded that "the O. K. Moore project, as presentlystructured, is doing an excellent job."7 With respect to Model Cities,the Philadelphia researchers found its monitoring procedures to be in-effective.

6The tests used for this evaluation were the Boehm Basic Concept Tests,the Wide Range Achievement Test, and the Durell Listening-Reading Test.

7Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Company, Evaluation of Educational Program,Phase I, for Pittsburgh Model Cities Program, October, 1971.

9.

Model Cities Withdrawal of Funds

In the Summer of 1971, Model Cities had allocated funds channeledthrough the Board for CEP for the second action year, October 1, 1971to September 30, 1972. However, clue to a political controversy betweenthe Mayor and Model Cities, HUD apprbpriations were delayed and funds forall Model Cities projects suspended. By October, 1971, no contract hadbeen signed between the Board and Model Cities concerning CEP, and it wasdecided that the Board would pay the necessary expenses and be reimbPrcedby Model Cities once its second action year plan had been approved by HUD.There was still no approyal in the middle of February, 1972, when ModelCities, in a letter, had to tell its recipients of funds that the reim-bursements could only be made up to February 24, unless the problems withHUD were resolved.

On February 18, 1972, a letter was sent from the Board's Office ofPersonnel to each paraprofessional working at CEP, referring to the letterfrom Model Cities and stating that "the O. K. Moore program, funded byModel Cities, will be terminated on February 24, 1972." Arrangementswould be made for the paraprofessionals to be hired by the Board asteacher aides in other Pittsburgh schools.

The Letsche Lab closed on February 24 and remained so for six weeks.This crisis situation produced much discussion both within the organizationsinvolved with CEP and ". the community, as to the effectiveness of theprogram. Varied perceptions and viewpoints came to the foreground anethe debate polarized opinions among supporters and opponents of the program.Aspects of this controversy will be discussed later in this report.

Parents' involvement with the program was expressed one day shortlyafter the closing of the Lab, when they demonstrated outside the School.The demonstration was filmed by television reporters. The parents thenwithheld their children from school for two days, threatening to continuedoing so unless the Board Superintendent would meet with them to discussthe reopening of the Lab. The Letsche Parents Organization, representingapproximately 60 families, voted for a group of mothers to meet with theSuperintendent. CEP filmed the mothers going to the meeting and in adiscussion immediately after their meeting. The parents also contactedvarious organizations in the Hill in order to mobilize support.

After weeks of uncertainty with no communication between the partiesinvolved, a meeting between Dr. Moore, the Board Superintendent, and theAssistant Superintendent of Curriculum and Instruction finally was organ-ized. A task force consisting of administrators of the Board, Model Cities,and LRDC was set up to deal with CEP's funding situation. Dr. Mooreparticipated in two of its meetings. The discussions revealed some con-fusion, especially concerning CEP's funding structure. Several factsabout the program and its relation to funding and operating agencies,respectively, had to be explained. After it had been clarified that theLab could be operated without Model Cities' funds (i.e., without the para-professionals), the decision was reached to open the Lab again. Three ofthe paraprofessionals continued to work in the Lab and were paid fromother sources.

10.

1972 Evaluations of CEP

The second part of the evaluation called for in the 1970 Model Cities-Board agreement (see page 8) was undertaken at the request of Dr. Moore bya member of the Responsive Environments Foundation, who is from RutgersUniversity. He reviewed the Board's evaluation study of CEP and designedanother using the same control group as the Board researchers had used,reasoning that if trends in the Board's data were amplified to significanceafter sixteen months, considering that the control group was p'rceived ashaving "middle class" characteristics by CEP staff, the benefits of CEPwould be clear.

The completion of the study was postponed due to the delay of releaseof funds from the Board. The Board officials involved were opposed to thestudy being undertaken by a person of Dr. Moore's choosing. The resultsof the tests used in the study8 revealed that the experimental group rankedsignificantly higher than the control group in reading, spelling, andarithmetic skills as well as knowledge of black history. The self-esteemtest indicated that the experimental group children also felt better aboutthemselves and were less anxious. There were no significant differencesbetween the groups in verbal intelligence and in Black-White Beauty Prefer-ence, whereas the control group ranked higner on the test measuringcreativity.

A second report, published by CEP, describes new testing and evalua-tion procedures, developed by Dr. Moore, as part of the Clarifying Environ-ments Program. A "Dynamic Assessment Paradigm" for the study of attitudes,was used on 76 black high school girls who were exposed to two models ofadvanced educational technology, one in a black context (CEP, at LetscheSchool) and the other in a white context.' This comprehensive studyrevealed that those who experienced CEP in Letsche School tended to feelbetter about themselves as blacks, about the situation of blacks and lessaccusatory against whites than those in the white-context group. IA

8The following tests were used: The Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test

(Form B), The Wide Range Achievement Test, Gilmore Oral Reading Test (Form C),The Piers-Harris Children's Self-Concept Scale, Revised Art Scale of theWelsh Figure Preference Test. In addition, a black history test and aBlack-White Beauty Preference Scale were developed by CEP staff for theevaluation.

9Described by 0. K. Moore in: "Statement Concerning Evaluation and

Supervision Problems," quality Control and Self-Esteem, an Evaluation ofthe eittsburgh Clarifying Environments Project, in the Hill District,Part II A, December, 1972.

10Susan J. Smerd, "Advanced Educational Technology and the Activities

of Inner-City High School Students," Quality Control and Self-Esteem, anEvaluation of the Pittsburgh Clarifying Environments Project in the HillDistrict, Part II A, December, 1972.

11Another CEP report termed, "A Clarifying Environment Approach to

Creativity," was published in September, 1972. A report on the use ofthe Picturephone and math, instruction for paraprofessionals in forth-coming.

11.

Since the evaluation study undertaken by the Board's Research Officein 1971 had been considered incomplete, a second study, using a differentset of tests,12 was conducted in 1972. The primary goal was to compareacademic achievement of students in a treatment group to that of three con-trol groups.

Due to a delay of appropriation of funds in the Board's Budget Office,the Research Office could not begin testing until February. Post-testingtook place in May-June. Maximum exposure time for the children was, however,only one and one-half months, since the Lab was closed for six weeks. Theevaluator, in her report, asked the reader to view the results with theabove-mentioned limitations in mind.

The pre-testing showed no significant differences between treatmentand control groups. Upon post-testing, there were significant differences(on the .05 level) in scores of a Letters and Sounds Subtest, in favor ofof the CEP kindergarten group, and on the second grade Listening Subtestin favor of one of the control groups. The results from the ExpressionsSurvey indicated that as treatment of children move up in grade, theirattitudes toward CEP seem to become more positive.

CEP 1972-73

The Lab in Schiller School, located in a white poverty area, Openedin September, 1972, after a long period of construction delays. At thesame time, a new bussing program brought black kindergarten children tothe School. Confusion arose initially as to whether these children shouldbe included in CEP. The issues involved were misinterpreted and some illfeelings between Dr. Moore and the School and Board administrators weregenerated. However, the problems were resolved in meetings with thePrincipal, the Board Area Supervisor, the Board Assistant Superintendentof Curriculum and Instruction, and Dr. Moore. It was decided that allchildren would be admitted to the Lab and an additional group of whitechildren would come in an afternoon program.

During the school year 1972-73, approximately 60 children fromnursery school and kindergarten partiepated in the program, primarilyinstructed by one supervisor and one assistant from Letsche Lab. Pupilsfrom a nearby white high achool were trained to assist in the Lab andhelped to operate it.

During the school year, approximately 80 children nursery throughthird grade attended the first Letsche Lab on a regular basis for halfan hour daily. Beginning in the Fall of 1971, however, more and morechildren from the other grades came voluntarily to the Lab, primarilyduring after-school hours and participated in some instruction programs.13

12The Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, the Cooperative Pre-School

Inventory, The Stanford Early School Achievement Test, The CooperativePrimary Test, and the Expressions Survey were used to measure performanceand attitudes of the children.

13See Attendance Chart on the following page.

50

40

30

20

10

Letsche Laboratory After-School Participation

Five-day week averages

1971-1972

Total at tendance

-- -

Third -sixth grades

Kindergarten- second

OM

.

op

ti

e,ft

rs...

../!!.

.../

411,

0-11

..0

14.

...,

I.qr

./1

1.^"

.

.00

.0"

I.

LAM

CM

tNi

CJ

VD

>>

>U

UO

0)

N. o d) cm

u.. C ED #

C CO

--)

r-. . C 03 --)

N C CO

--)

M . C tO --)

rs.

JD d) LL..

JD d) U..

JD a)

LL.

13.

For many children, it provided a good after-school activity.

By the end of 1972, practicially every pupil at Letsche had beeninvolved in some Lab activities, and about sixty Schiller children attendedthe CEP Lab in their school. During the Spring of 1973, however, theSchiller Lab did not operate regularly.

CEP in the Spring of 1973

The 1972-73 school year completed the demonstration phase of CEP withLetsche School children. In the Winter of 1973, a task force was set upunder the auspices of the Board of Education's Office of Curriculum andInstruction to review all published data on CEP and to make a recommenda-tion to the Board Superintendent. The task force was headed by a professorof Pitt's School of Education and included other University professors andBoard officials, as well as some agency personnel not a part of theUniversity or Board of Education. In their review of the available data,they concluded that all research on the program had not been done well,and their recommendation, therefore, called for "careful research" to beundertaken during one year of program continuation. However, before theSuperintendent reacted to this recommendation, Dr. Moore, in a memorandum,notified the Board of the closing of CEP at Schiller and Letsche Schools.He stated that the obligations to the funding agencies had been fulfilled.In an interview, he expressed his view that lack of trained personnel torun the labs precluded the continuation of the program in the two schools.With the withdrawal of Model Cities' funds, the majority of the lab-trainedparaprofessionals had to leave the program, and the other staff memberswho were encouraged to continue their education reached a professionallevel for which other jobs were more appropriate. Dr. Moore saw it as theBoard's responsibility to plan staff training for the continued operationof the labs within the public school system. However, according to theAssistant Superintendent of Curriculum and Instruction, it was assumed bythe Board that Dr. Moore would train staff.

Dr. Moore stressed that CEP operations would continue within theUniversity at the Lab in the Social Sciences Building.

ton

PART II

Analysis of the Development of the

Clarifying Environments Program

in

Pittsburgh

14.

PART II

Analysis of the Development of theClarifying Environments Program

In Pittsburgh

The Institution-Building Model

In the previous section, the historical development of CEP has beendescribed. Some attention has been paid to its transactions and relationswith other institutional entities, which have been part of the organiza-tion's institutionalization process. In the following section, thisprocess will be analyzed within the framework of the Institution-BuildingModel, developed as a guide for introducing change into an existing system."Institution-building is defined as "the planning, structuring, and guidanceof new or reconstructed organizations which (a) embody changes in values,functions, physical and/or social technologies; (b) establish, foster andprotect new normative relationships and action pnterns; and (c) obtainsupport and complementarity in the environment."' Although this model

was not used for the implementation of CEP, UUIP research staff found itapplicable as a tool for analyzing the program's implementation process.

Viewed from the perspective of institution-building, CEP constitutesa planned innovation in the process of being institutionalized as part ofthe University organization and its resources channeled into the community,as well as a component of the urban public education system. The institu-

tion-building model focuses on the intra-organizational and inter-organiza-tional elements which are relevant to the institutional development of an

organization. The first group of variables (intra-organizational) includesgoals, program, resources, personnel, leadership, and internal structure;the second (inter-organizational) refers to four types of linkages:enabling, functional, normative, and diffuse.

Generally, linkages can be defined as "the interdependencies whichexist between an institution and other relevant parts of the society. 1116

Specifically, enabling linkages are defined as those "with organizationsand social groups which control the allocation of authority an.1 resourcesneeded by the institution to function"; functional linkages "wch thoseorganizations performing functions and services which are complementaryin a production sense, which supply the inputs and which use the outputsof the institution"; normative linkages as those "with institutions which

14For a full description of the Model, see Appendix II.

15M. Esman, "The Elements of Institution-Building," Chapter 1 in

J. W. Eaton (ed.), Institution-Building and Development: From Concepts

to Application, Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1972. Originally

published in: M. Esman and H. Blaise, Institution-Building Research- -

The Guiding Concepts, (mimeo), 1966.

16Ibid., p. 23.

16.

incorporate norms and values (positive or negative) which are relevant to

the doctrine and program of the institution"; and diffuse linkages "with

elements in the society which cannot clearly be identified by membership

in formal organization".17

CEP, through its development, has had transactions with several insti-

tutions, organizations and groups within the University and the community.

Depending on the particular role relationship (i.e., functional, enabling,

etc.) between CEP and these linkage organizations, the interactions have

varied in degrees of formality and complexity. As will be apparent, most

of the linkages have performed more than one role with respect to the

organizational and institutional development of CEP.

The institution-building mod fl will be utilized to analyze the relations

between these linkages and the inbtitutional performance of CEP over time.

Each intra-organizational component of CEP will be described separately.

Since the linkages have had a major impact on CEP, they will be treated as

sub-areas of each variable, which will be examined in terms of how it has

been perceived and affected by linkage organizations and groups. The

analysis deals primarily with the CEP in Letsche School.

In the following section, the goals of CEP will be described in

relation to the University and the community.

General Goals

During the last decade or so, the increasing problems relating to

cities have led us to speak in terms of the "urban crisis". Citizens

have become increasingly active in trying to work for solutions to the

problems and exert pressure for action. The response has been the allo-

cation of large amounts of both federal and private funds for the estab-

lishment of various kinds of programs to deal with such problems as edu-

cation, pollution, crime and public health.

Universities located in the large urban environments have not stayedisolated from the crises, neither in terms of problems, like riots, nor in

terms of pressures to participate in their solutions. Increasingly, urban

universities, with their resources and expertise, have become oriented tothei_ environments and adopted a "public service" role. The University of

Pittsburgh is no exception. The present Chancellor, when he came to theUniversity in 1966, stated "that the university would acquire a higherorder of public responsibility .fl18 In 1970, he said, "the University

has added to its list of high priority objectives a new dimension to accom-pany its energetic drive for quality in educational and research activities.

This includes humanizing and making more habitable the urban environmentand provioing oppoKtunities for continuing the education of an ever-widening

array of people. 1,

17Ibid., pp. 23-24.

18"Report of the Chancellor, 1970," Pitt Magazine, No. 4 (Winter, 1970).

19/bid., p. 1.

17.

It was in this general normative climate that Dr. Moore came to theUniversity of Pittsburgh as a researcher and expert in the area of advancededucational technology and methods, whose theories and goals could be wellapplied to the "public service" role of the University and to the research

and development activities of LRDC. The overall goal of LRDC was (and is)

"to improve education through a unique combination of development workdirected toward products needed in the nation's schools and research workdirected toward disciplines which are relevant to that development effort".

20

In Dr. Moore's words, the long-range goal of CEP "is to create anexperime2ally-grounded theory of human problem-solving and social inter-action". The program is now in its 12th year of a projected 20-year planof research and development. One, and for our purposes, the most relevantgoal is to "design equipment and procedures in accordance with the emergingprinciples of theory, both to facilitate the testing of our [Moore's) theoretical

constructions and for the sake of making educational applications forpressing social problems". 22 Dr. Moore has focused on the problems of thedisadvantaged minority groups and their future in society and has appliedhis theories to improve educational environments, which he views as anessential part of bringing about changes in the larger social system.

Specified Goals

Dr. Moore's major objective is to equip children of disadvantaged back-grounds with the necessary skills and self-esteem to prepare them better toconfront intellectual challenges and to improve their lives in a complexsociety. Specifically, his objective is to expose these children, startingon the pre-school level, to a "clarifying environment" encompassing indi-vidualized instruction and specially designed machines, methods, andcourses, in order to bring them "up to national standards vis-a-vis academicperformance as usually defined . . . and to go beyond these standards withrespect to imparting knowledge and skills not normally taught in public orprivate schools". 43

Implicit in this objective is the involvement of parents in theirchildren's learning process in order to activate and encourage their inter-est in learning--both for themselves and their children. Concomitantly,community residents are trained as paraprofessionals, and CEP staff membersare assisted in pursuing their educations.

20Learning Research and Development Center, Basic Program Plan, Spring,1972.

21O.K. Moore, "The Clarifying Environments Program," Educational Tech-

alax, 1971.

22Ibid.

23O.K. Moore, "Description of the Lower Hill District Clarifying

Environments Project," in Academic Competence and Self-Esteem, An Evalua-tion of the Pittsburgh Clarifying Environments Project in the Hill District,for the Pittsburgh Board of Education and Pittsburgh Model Cities Agency,September, 1972.

18.

Dr. Moore's aim is to make his innovative educational program a vehicleto bring together grassroot leaders with leaders of the "established" lead-ership of the community to encourage their joint effort in working on thealleviation of problems facing everyone in the city.

Two organizations which played important roles in the implementationof CEP goals were the Board of Education and the Pittsburgh Model CitiesProgram. The general goals of both of these linkage organizations seemed tomatch those of CEP.

As the pressing needs for improved quality of education, especially forghetto children, were recognized, the Pittsburgh Board of Education respondedby a growing interest in innovative education programs. In 1965, whenDr. Moore came to Pittsburgh, the Board's Superintendent suggested a specialfocus on new pre-school programs ard expressed interest in CEP. The Board'sobjectives to improve education generally and for ghetto children specif-ically created a normative linkage with CEP. This facilitated cooperationbetween Dr. Moore and the Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum and Instruc-tion, and led to the establishment of an enabling linkage, whereby CEP wasintroduced into the public school system. The Board also administered fundsprovided for CEP by Model Cities. However, certain events and developmentsoccurred that combined to change the nature of the support which had beenestablished.

In 1967, there was a change in Board administration, and the new Super-intendent emphasized priorities that were different from the previous ones.Although this shift did not produce any immediate changeswith respect toprogram support, over time this support became restricted to the administra-tive area and divorced from that of curriculum and program philosophy per se.

Concurrently, the relationship between Dr. Moore and certain Board officialsdeteriorated, which the latter attributed to interactional difficulties.Dr. Moore, however, perceived it to be a result of the Board administration'sde-emphasis of innovations and resistence to changes within the schoolsystem. Iz the Winter of 1972, a Board spokesman expressed skepticism con-cerning Dr. Moore's objective "to have second and third graders read fourth,fifth, and sixth grade material", which Dr. Moore had stated was possible onthe basis of results from previous programs. There was the feeling amongBoard officials that it would be possible to evaluate whether these objec-tives had been reached or not, after a year of program operation. On thatbasis, a Board official referred to the first challenged evaluation under-taken by the Board's Research Office contending that there was no evidenceof the "dramatic gains" which had been promised. Therefore, Board offi-cials perceived Dr. Moore's predictions to be unrealistic and too broad;they stated the Board favored modest claims, based on careful documentationof activities and results.

The CEP relationship with Model Cities also originated through a norma-tive goal linkage.

The federal government's Model Cities Program was a response to theneed for alleviating some of the urban ills. In the area of education, thegoal of the Pittsburgh Model Cities Program was to "provide a superior edu-cational program in each school in the model neighborhood (including the

19.

Hill area) which will produce graduates who are intellectli*lly, emotionally,and socially competent to thrive in our complex society ". In this effort,it entered into a contract with the Board in 1970 and 1971, to support CEPoperations. A linkage was then established on the normative level in termsof mutually supportive goals and on the functional and enabling levels withrespect to funding.

However, during 1972, Model Cities experienced internal conflicts andunderwent changes, whereby a shift in priorities occurred toward economicdevelopment and construction programs. Model Cities representatives ex-pressed skepticism regarding stated objectives of CEP, implying there wasa great deal of "mere rhetoric" about the program. They asked for concretedata on its proposed benefits and results on which to base a decision con-cerning continued financial support.

In connection with the crisis in early 1972, when the above-mentionedviews came to the forefront, a spokesman from LRDC argued that it was notpossible to evaluate the program, ex post facto, since clear guidelines formeasuring results were lacking. These views of CEP which developed amongleaders of major supporting agencies revealed skepticism toward the objec-tives of CEP, or at least with the program's ability to meet them. Conser-vative estimates, careful documentation based on clear guidelines, andconcrete data on results were requested.

In the following section, we will describe how CEP goals have beentranslated into action, i.e., its program, and discuss how it was viewedand affected by the several linkages.

Program

As has been described in Part I of this report, Dr. Moore's goals wereimplemented through the establishment of three Clarifying EnvironmentsLaboratories in Pittsburgh during the last five years.

Educational tools, designed by Dr. Moore are also being used inapproximately fifty various settings around the country and abroad. Thescope of the overall CEP is thus large, but for the purposes of this analy-sis, the focus is on the program's operations in Pittsburgh. The way CEPwas perceived by its linkage organizations became apparent during the crisisin February, 1972, when the Letsche Lab was closed. Much discussion arosein the community about the program .r.d its raison d'etre. CEP's imageamong linkage organizations and groups and how the program was affected bythem will be reviewed below.

24Model Cities Agency, Outline if Four-Year Comprehensive Education

Plan (mimeo), 1971.

20.

Board Officials and Letsche School Staff

The Board's controversial first evaluation of CEP failed to show any

positive effects of the program. The researcher who authored the report

cautioned that no conclusions should be drawn on the basis of the results.

However, Dr. Moore believes the document influenced the way Board officials

came to perceive his program, citing one representative's statement in a

local newspaper about the program not showing the "dramatic gains" that had

been promised. Dr. Moore felt that Board administrator's permitting the

poorly conducted evaluation studies to be completed by the Board's Research

Office, contributed to termination of the program at Letsche. Although

Dr. Moore had stated that a comprehensive evaluation of the CEP was unreal-

istic before the end of the five-year period that a child should be exposed

to a Clarifying Environment, he encouraged interim evaluation studies of

the program, and went along with the Board's regular evaluation procedures

and tests. he contended, however, that the Board had failed to complete

initial testing of the Letsche children and therefore lacked data on IQ

and achievement from previous two-and-one-half years. In addition, he con-

sidered the Board's first evaluation study invalid and criticized the

second for having been undertaken while the children were not exposed to

the Lab for six weeks out of three months between pre- and post-testing and

for using the same substitute teachers as testers as in the previous study.

(See pages 8 and 11 .) He perceived the relevant Board administrators as

not having an understanding of research and evaluation of innovation

programs.

The Board administrators, on their part, assumed it possible to get

evidence of program benefits through short-term evaluations without the

basic data the Research Office was supposed to have collected. Apparently,

there was not enough communication between D. Moore and the relevant Board

officials in order for mutual awareness and understanding to arise. The

procedures and outcome of CEP staff's regular monitoring of programactivities and measurements of skills (not tapped by the Board's planned

testing) which did take place, would have been important to discuss. in

addition, it is Dr. Moors's belief that any "fundamental educational inno-

vation" requires novel supervision and evaluation methods which correspond

to the particular innovation. It would have been essential for Dr. Moore

and Board officials to discuss these issues as part of their overall coop-

eration concerning CEP's operation in public schools. The experimental

nature of the program, the new skills, attitudes and methods it requires,

its long-term aspects and underlyin, theories could, thus, have been

clarified and emphasized, and the program might have maintained credibility.

In the words of one official, the Board was "not moved to enthusiasm"

about the program. It was the view of the Assistant Superintendent forCurriculum and Instruction that CEP did not constitute a curriculum programin that it did not represent the continuity of a total learning situation

in which children spend the whole day. Children spent only half an hour

in the lab where the emphasis was on exploring which the Superintendent saw

as only one part of learning. CEP was perceived as being divorced from

regular curriculum and classroom. This view seemed to be reflected in the

development of the linkage relationship between the Board and CEP.

21.

After 1971, when the first lab in Letsche School started its operation,the main role of the Board vis-a-vis CEP, became that of an operatingagency, administering funds for the project and forwarding reports fromDr. Moore to the funding agencies. This responsibility was not part of theBoard's Office of Curriculum and Instruction; and it seems, therefore, that,in effect, the Board's attention to the curricular aspects of CEP werediminished in the midst of financial and accounting matters. Dr. Moore has

pointed to the tact that the Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum andInstruction and Board evaluators visited the Lab only minimally.

It was Dr. Moore's idea that children should only spend half an hourdaily in the lab, but that a carry-over from the lab to the classroomshould occur in order for the pupil to gain maximally. This would beachieved by linking activities in the two environments through cooperationwith school teachers. There seemed to be few efforts made by the relevantBoard area supervisors to gather and disseminate information about CEP andto coordinate lab and classroom activities. It had been Dr. Moore's inten-tion to have regular in-service training sessions with his staff and theschool staff in order to bring lab and classroom activities closer together.The school with its principal, teachers, and children naturally constitutedone of CEP's most vital functional linkages, both in terms of input (space,children) and output (learning), and effective communication was essential.However, only a few such meetings took place. Dr. Moore and his staff per-ceived the Principal and the teachers as non-supportive of the CEP, andcontended that plans to have children attend the Lab for the full half-houra day were impeded. It was a fact that there had been minimum contact be-tween CEP staff and the principal, who had been uninvolved from it sinceits inception in the school. The principal expressed indifference aboutthe program, as did two of the school teachers, who were poorly informedabout it. They had only visited the lab once, although they had beeninvited many times. They perceived it as a "non-public school" program,not making use of public school books and methods. For that reason, theysaw no potential in it. They questioned Dr. Moore's motives, as well asthe possibilities of helping ghetto children by extra education programs.The EP staff believed that the school staffs' indifference and uncertaintyadversely influenced principals of other Hill schools, as well as the viceprincipal of Fifth Avenue High School. (See page 7 .)

Model Cities

The similar problem of lack of communication and information becameapparent during interviews with Model Cities Education Coordinators. Theywere surprisingly uninformed of CEP activities in general, and had onlyrecently (after two years of funding CEP) became knowledgeable about whataspects of CEP Model Cities was funding.

Model Cities' tequireprzats as to progress reports from CEP via theBoard varied due to changes in staff and policies. This sometimes cawedunclear communication and misunderstandings between Model Cities and theBoard. Other ways in which Model Cities attempted to monitor CEP apparentlydid not work successfully enough to provide the Education Coordinators with

22.

the necessary information. In an evaluation of the Model Cities Agency,Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Co. did criticize it for poor monitoring pro-cedures and an inadequate communications system.25 These facts, coupledwith staff changes between 1970 and 1972 in the office in charge of educa-tion programs had a negative affect on Model Cities cooperation with theBoard and with Dr. Moore.

Model Cities' position regarding CEP was demonstrated by the with-drawal of funds in the middle of the second action year. Model Citiesofficials statad that this action had been taken because the program hadfailed to prove itself "saleable" to the public schools, since no benefitsto the children's academic achievement had been shown. More specifically,they had negative opinions about the high costs of lab equipment and thedifficulty in operating the machines. They questioned the need for suchadvanced technical devices, contending that there was no evidence that theyenhanced children's learning. They thought that intelligent children wouldbe able to learn well in any environment, and that weaker children wouldnot be able to use the equipment well enough to learn. They also felt thatit was superfluous to train paraprofessionals in the Laboratory, as ModelCities had its own teacher training program at the University.

The reasons for these negative views and the sudden withdrawal ofModel Cities support to a program whose goals coincided with those of itsown are hard to trace. Some reasons might have been of a political nature,as controversy surrounded Model Cities' leadership. We also have noted ashift in Model Cities priorities. Nevertheless, Model Cities had alreadymade a commitment to fund the program for the second action year. However,

the fact that the relevant Model Cities officials were poorly informedabout the program and about whit aspects Model Cities was funding moatlikely made them more prone to skepticism.

The Communit --Local Individuals and Informal Groups

Information about perceptions of CEP in the local community hasmainly been obtained in indirect ways such as through the media and fromCEP staff members. Interviews with parents of children attending the labswere planned, both by UUIP and CEP staff, but could not be carried outwithin the limits of this research effort. Our available data are thus byno me',ns extensive and will, at best, only give a general indication ofthe attitude-climate among various groups and individuals in the community.This is part of CEP's diffuse linkage system.

However, CEP is connected to the local community by a strong functionallinkage as well. This consists of the children who participate in the

25Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Co., op cit.

23.

program, and without whom it could not operate. The data we have indicate

that the children have enjoyed the labs. This finding has been partially

confirmed by the increasing number of children who volunteered to participatein the program.

All the parents of children attending the labs were initially invited tomeetings to be informed about the program. They interacted with CEP staff at

various events organized in a community Center in the Hill District and inDr. Moore's home. A Letsche Parents Organization was formed, representingsixty families. A group of representatives participated in the various meet-ings, according to Dr. Moore. In his view, there was a continuous inter-action between the parents and his program, and this, he felt, developedstrong grass-root support of CEP. This thus came to constitute a normativelinkage.

The attitudes of the parents towards the program were expressed duringWinter, 1972, when the Letsche Lab had to close. Parent groups then demon-strated outside the school of support of th3 program, withheld their childrenfrom school and arranged a meeting with the Board Superintendent to ask forthe reopening of the ab. They also contacted various community organizationson the Hill to ask for support.

It should be mentioned in this context that these parents of LetscheSchool children have not been active in a PTA. The school principal and a

Board official are of the opinion that it is very hard to organize andactivate them, and interaction between them and the school has been minimal.Therefore, when they organized in support of CEP, it was the belief of theprincipal and teachers that CEP staff had helped them. The parents had beeninformed about the crisis situation and the closing of the Lab by members ofthe CEP staff, and they organized then as a response to this situation. Dr.

Moore for his part pointed to the detrimental aspects of the "lack of inter-face" between the school and the parents, emphasizing the differences withregard to his program and the importance of interacting with the parents ina way compatible with their own mode of activities, rather than throughformal organizational meetings.

The relationship between parents of children at the Schiller Lab andCEP did not develop into a continuous interaction pattern. Dr. Mooreattributes this to the fact that the Schiller area does not constitute a"community" in the same sense as the Hill and that many parents do not livein the school area.

Black Leaders

It has been Dr. Moore's objective to make his program a vehicle by whichto connect grassroots leaders with the "established" leadership of the com-munity. When planning his first lab in Pittsburgh, he was in contact withleaders of black community organizations, who visited his labs in othercities. Relations with United Black FroLt leaders were good, UBF acted asa consultant to Dr. Moore and also provided information about CEP to thecommunity. Two other black organizational leaders stated they became in-volved with CEP only during the crisis period in 1972.

24.

Relations with other influential black leaders did not develop in thesame positive direction. Dr. Moore was not backed up by them, and he per-ceived this to be partly due to a conflict in goals. Possibly they per-ceived the program under his leadership to be competing with their own ob-jectives and interests. Dr. Moore suggested that the opposition came from"extremist" groups, who not only opposed Dr. Moore as a white person workingin the ghetto, but also the Jack and Jill Foundation, which they saw as rep-resenting the "establishment." He felt they were against racial integrationand airy constructive remedial changes within the present system. Dr. Mooreconnected some of the opposition to power conflicts among the black leaders.He felt they attempted to obstruct many of his plans by influencing ModelCities and Board c,l'acials in negative directions. Moreover, Dr. Moore re-lated that he ana some of his staff members had received threatening phonecalls and were subject to physical threats, which, he intimated were insti-gated by extremist black group members. Because of such opposition, Dr.Moore is skeptical that he could have continued his work in the Hill areawithout the grassroot support he had developed.

As a result of the unstable environment, with conflicts of opinionand interest even among various black community groups, CEP did not de-velop into a vehicle by which they could coalesce and organize to achievemore unity and power.

Leadership and Internal Structure

"Leadership is considered to be the single most critical element ininstitution-building because deliberately induced change processes requireintensive skillful and highly committed management both of internal and ofenvironmental relationships."26 Since the internal structure of an organ-ization includes the patterns of authority, it is intimately linked to thevariable of leadership, and will be included in this section. Dr. Moore,like many independent researchers, acted as an entrepreneur. His multipleroles involved the mobilization of the program's resources, supervision oflab operations, instruction of children and training of staff. His "visi-bility" in the labs fostered close working relationships between him andhis staff. Each lab was set up with a supervisor, a coordinator, and boothassistants. In the organization, Dr. Moore assumed primary authority. Inmatters regarding program planning, a participatory decision-making process,including all staff, was used.

Besides internal management and program development, the leadershiprole includes that of dealing with the relevant external environment - i.e.,linkages. Dr. Moore has assumed this task in what have beers primarily ad-ministrative functions. Their scope has increased during the last fouryears, which he perceives as detrimental to the development of his programand his work as a scholar and researcher.

26Esman, Ea. cit., p. 22

2S.

A characteristic of Dr. Moore's entrepreneurial role has been thebuilding up of an extensive network of diffuse linkages, many of which haveprovided resources. For example, in his efforts to bring both grassrootscommunity groups and upper echelon groups closer together, he has invitedblack community leaders and representatives from business, industry, and themedia to visit the labs and to social gatherings in his home. In addition,

Moore's application of the picturephone in 1971 connected the program withthe downtown offices of major businesses, which used the picturephoneservice for communication with other businesses and customers. At CEP, thepicturephone is employed "as a supervisory tool to guarantee the quality ofthe innovative educational techniques",27 and as an educational tool byvirtue of its reflexive properties which are in line with Dr. Moore's learn-ing theories. (See Appendix I) Through the picturephone network in Pitts-

burgh, information about CEP could be transmitted to the connected industriesand corporations. Other contacts have included foreign experts in education,state government officials, University administrators, and representativesof large foundations and corporations, most of whom have visited the labs.Public relations' activities have also included documentary films of CEP inoperation, as well as one on the use of the picturephone, which were com-pleted during 1971. Interviews with Dr. Moore and his staff and films about

CEP frequently have been presented by local television stations. Publica-

tions of articles about CEP and presentations by Dr. Moore at meetings ofprofessional ,and scientific associations also constitute diffuse linkages.In general, linkage with these "established" organizations and groups com-posing the diffuse linkage system have helped support CEP by adaing to itsimage of a viable organization and in transmitting information about the

program.

The objectives, many functions and specific style. of Dr. Moore's lead-

ership have led him to work as independently as possible from any existingorganizational structure. This has created friction with regard to differ-ent aspects of CEP's linkages, such as LRDC, the Board, and certain groupsof black leaders. Their perceptions of Dr. Moore as CEP Director will be

reviewed below.

Some Linkages as They Relate to CEP Leadership

Representatives of groups and organizations linked with CEP have viewedDr. Moore's way of operating often to be too independent and detached fromtheir organizational structures, stipulations and interests. In this con-text, clarification of changes in the internal structure of LRDC and theBoard are necessary.

Originally in 1965, Dr. Moore worked out of LRDC, which was CEP's majorenabling and normative linkage. (See under "Goals" and "Resources") In

conjunction with a shift of focus within LRDC's research activities, over

270. K. Moore, "A Warm Medium of Communication," in Bell TelephoneMagazine, March-April, 1972.

26.

the years immediately following, a change in the organizational set-upoccurred whereby project activities became more integrated and managementmore centralized. Dr. Moore found it impractical to be part of this inte-gration, partly due to difference in theoretical approaches and partly insponsorships (USOE versus REF). LRDC representatives perceived Moore'sattitude as indicating an unwillingness to cooperate and felt that he was"using" LRDC as a funding agency. These differing perceptions led to adeterioration in working relations between Dr. Moore and LRDC scholars,with the result that funds and bookkeeping services were withdrawn in 1971.Dr. Moore then aligned the program with the Sociology Department, in whichhe had held a position since 1966.

After the change of administration within the Board during the late60's, an internal reorganization took place which led to the establishmentof "area offices" for separate school districts within the city. Eachoffice is staffed by a director of education and area supervisors who actas liaison persons between the school in the district and the Board.

Dr. Moore's contacts with the Board had almost entirely been throughthe Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction and continuedto be so even after the Board's reorganization, although the new rulesstipulated that school contacts be with the assigned directors of education.This became a source of complaint on the part of the above-mentionedassistant superintendent, who thought that Dr. Moore was not using thedesignated communication channels. Dr. Moore's choice not to change chan-nels was most likely due to what he felt had already been time-consumingexperiences with a bureaucracy like the Board.

Nevertheless, these differing perceptions added to the deteriorationof relations between Dr. Moore and the Board. Here, again, we have anillustration of how conflicts developed between CEP and its linkages, dueto incompatibilities between changes within the latter and Dr. Moore'sestablished work pattern and leadership style.

Resources

CEP has received various kinds of support from a number of sources anda quite complex network of enabling linkages has emerged. To make it asclear as possible, we can categorize the kinds of support or inputs intofunds, equipment, and facilities, and describe the network in light ofCEP's development in Pittsburgh. Linkage relationships as they relate toCEP's resources and funding structure will also be discussed.

The Lab at the University

Financial support to build the first lab was received through LRDC ofthe University of Pittsburgh (mainly from USOE) and through the ResponsiveEnvironments Foundations, Inc. (REF) (from the Jack and Jill of Americaand Carnegie Foundations). With support from the University's Chancellor

27.

space for a lab was provided in the Social Sciences Building. Bookkeeping

services were provided by LRDC and REF. The Board of Education furnishedtransportation for children from the Hill area to the Lab.

The Letsche Lab

Lab space in Letsche School was made available by the School Board,which funded the remodeling. Initially, an anonymous donor provided fundsfor equipment. Grants from the Hillman ($17,000) and Mellon Foundations($25,000) were received in the summer of 1970 to be used for running laboperations, and were renewable for three years. The anonymous donor's grantwas administered by the Board, whereas the Mellon grant was transmittedthrough the Board for administration by LRDC. The Hillman grant was re-ceived directly by LRDC. The contracts with the foundations called forreports by Dr. Moore about the use of monies to be transmitted both throughLRDC and the Board. In the Fall of 1970, the Board entered into a contractwith the local Model Cities for a grant of $127,000 for a first actionyear. This grant was primarily used for salaries for ten paraprofessionalswho would be trained to work in the Lab, and for the construction of asecond lab in the Model Area (the Hill District). As has been mentionedearlier, the contract called for progress reports on Lab activities to bedelivered by Dr. Moore to Model Cities via the Board, which acted as thecontractor and through which all funds were transmitted to CEP. At timesthere were complaints on the part of Model Cities that the requiredprogress reports were not forthcoming. The responsible Board officialsstated that there sometimes was confusion as to the requirements, due tothe internal changes in Model Cities. Dr. Moore, for his part, contendedthat he had not been told about the contract between Model Cities and theBoard, until some months after it had been signed, and consequently couldnot furnish any reports until then. There is no available record on whenand how Dr. Moore was notified about Model Cities funding, but accordingto the spokesman for the Board's Office for Special Projects, Dr. Moore wasaware that a contract was being signed. The above factors seem to indicatethat inadequate communication did exist, and contributed to misunderstand-ings and difficulties in the interaction between the linkage organizationsand CEP.

The withdrawal of Model Cities funds in the Winter of 1972 meant thatthe Lab at Letsche School had to operate without seven of the ten para-professionals who had been trained and paid to work in the Lab, as stipu-lated by Model Cities agreement with the Board. The three remaining para-professionals chose to continue working in the Lab, either on a voluntarybasis or finding other sources of financial support. The Lab was able tocontinue its operations with the help of the Hillman and Mellon grants, andthe remaining staff of eight people. The remaining staff had to take on aheavier work load so that the number of children attending the Lab wouldnot have to be cut down. The withdrawal of Model Cities funds also haltedthe construction of the CEP second Hill Lab, thus preventing the extensionof the program to children in other Hill District schools.

28.

As has been mentioned earlier, Dr. Moore's relation to LRDC becamemore marginal over the years. During 1971, its financial support for CEPdecreased and finally was terminated. (See page 26 for discussion on thedevelopment between CEP and LRDC) Dr. Moore then sought new sources offunding. The Department of Sociology took over bookkeeping services withthe exception of the adwinistration of the Mellon grant, which was takenover by the Board of Education.

The Schiller Lab

The contract with Mellon Foundation stipulated that part of the grantbe used to operate a lab for deprived white children. During 1971, theconstruction of the Schiller Lab started. Space was made available by theBoard which also paid remodeling expenses. Equipment for the Lab wasleased from the Responsive Environments Foundations, Inc. The Schoolprincipal supported the program and was interested in its implementation.

In the construction of each of the school labs (Letsche and Schiller),whin were dealt with through the Board, there were delays due to diffi-culties concerning the kind of furnishings such as carpeting and air con-ditioners. In Dr. Moore's opinion, the Board's purchasing procedures weretoo rigid and resulted in purchases of unnecessarily expensive equipment.Relevant Board officials, however, perceived difficulties due to Dr. Moore'sfrequent changes in requests.

Linkages as They Relate to CEP's Resources

At certain times, it became unclear to many of the parties involvedwith CEP what funds were used for what purposes. As a result, uncertaintyarose as to what degree contract stipulations were followed and allocationswere appropriate. Complaints were expressed by both Board and Model Citiesofficials that Dr. Moore did not sufficiently adhere to directives regardingthe use of funds and the furnishing of progress reports.

Part of the problems and misunderstandings very likely stem from com-plex funding structure. A number of funding sources and separate adminis-tration of funds by different organizations existed. Dr. Moore was answer-able to a number of entities and responsible for delivering reports to themdirectly and to others via the Board, which acted as a contractor. In addi-tion, as we have seen, the internal communications system, the monitoringprocedures of, and the structural changes in these linkage organizationshad an adverse affect on the interaction and understanding between theparties involved.

Much of the available information is contradictory, which underscoresthe complexity of the funding situation and partly explains the misunder-standings and criticisms among those involved.

29.

Personnel

Before funds were received from Model Cities at the end of 1970, ninepeople worked for the CEP. These included one administrative assistant,two lab supervisors, four booth assistants, the assistant director, and thedirector. All were trained by Dr. Moore and participated in the instructionof the children in the lab. Four were white and five black. Two of thebooth assistants (white) were volunteer graduate students.

Model Cities funds were used for hiring seven community residents to betrained to work as paraprofessionals in the Letsche Lab. Some of the jobspreviously held by these new staff members included truck driver, sales girl,aid hospital night attendant. Two of the men were trained to be lab super-visors, one for Letsche Lab and one for the planned Schiller Lab. Dr. andMrs. Moore conducted intensive training, which included instruction methods,the operation of machines (among others a desk computer), and math. Thetwo graduate student volunteers were later hired as research assistanti who,together with the administrative secretary (also a student), were encouragedand assisted in their continuing education at the University.

The CEP personnel thus consisted of a heterogeneous group of peoplewith varying occupational, educationak, racial, and religious backgroL:es.The training program and common focus engendered a strong esprit de corpsand commitment to program goals among the staff members. As a result, thegroup's cohesion enabled them to deal effectively with internal problems.

However, when Model Cities funds were withdrawn from CEP in 1972, theseven CEP paraprofessionals left to accept positions offered by the Board.The remaining staff viewed this as a sign of insufficient idealism. Therelevant Board official stated that the paraprofessionals had felt upsetabout having to leave CEP, but that they were unable to continue withoutfinancial support. Dr. Moore later related that the Board had refused topay them to remain in the Lab. Most of the paraprofessionals later leftthe jobs offered by the Board, and UUIP did not have the opportunity togather information as to how they felt about the program.

Summary and Conclusions

CEP has beer! analyzed in terms of its institutionalization as a Uni-versity program in the community. In Pittsburgh, Dr. Moore's work hasfocused on the improvement of educational environments for members of dis-advantaged backgrounds. The Clarifying Environments Program which hedeveloped in the beginning of the 1960's while still at Yale University wasimplemented here, first by the establishment of a laboratory at the Univer-sity and later at two schools--Letsche and Schiller--in economically de-prived areas of the city. The program's orientation towards serving thecommunity made it compatible with Pitt's commitment to a higher order ofpublic responsibility and a normative linkage was produced between CEP andthe University. Another normative linkage developed with the Board ofEducation whose Superintendent encouraged experimental innovation programs.

30.

The Board's objectives to improve education generally and for childrenfrom disadvantaged backgrounds specifically corresponded to CEP goalsand those of the local Model Cities Program, which entered into a con-tract to financially support CEP operations. Thus, a three-way enablinglinkage was established between Model Cities, the Board of Education,and CEP.

Although the general goal of improving education for the disad-vantaged was supported by the Board and Model Cities, skepticism developedaround some of Dr. Moore's predictions about the lab-children's achieve-ments. Part of this skepticism might have been due to lack of knowledgeabout CEP theories, goals, and objectives. In terms of institution-building, "doctrine . . . acts on the external environment projecting animage of the organization, the values for which it stands, and the ser-

vices or benefits ,that it can be expected to deliver to its various link-ages or clients. HLO It is essential to note the difference between CEP'sgeneral and specified goals, the latter fulfilling only part of the over-all goals. Developing new educational theories and techniques and improv-ing the educational environment and opportunities for disadvantagedchildren arc goals generally supported in today's society. However, if

specified goals seem unclear or unrelated to these general goals, it be-comes necessary for the innovator to carefully state realistic and clearlyspecified goals, put in relation to his program's overall thrust andsociety's norms. This is especially crucial in a situation where an in-novative program is dependent on formal evaluations and refunding byestablished institutions.

It is especially a problem for a program like CEP, being a fun-damental innovation program, which requires new knowledge and attitudeson the part of those connected with it, as there often is resistence tosomething new and different. In such a case, the risk of an organization

losing its credibility and becoming separate from existing institutionsis greater. It seems that extended communication would have been valuablebetween Dr. Moore and Board area supervisors, who acted as liaisons be-tween the Board and the schools. In this way, exchange of informationwith the school teachers could have been facilitated and helped bridgethe gap between CEP and the regular classroom. Better communication be-tween the two environments could not only have added to the child'stotal learning experience, but also helped diminish the image of CEP'sseparateness and thus helped towards its institutionalisation.

When Model Cities funds for CEP were withdrawn in the winter of1972, the problem of lack of communication and information between theparties involved became further apparent. The novel aspects of an inno-vative organization introduce and require new knowledge and changedattitudes on the part of its environment. As a result, elements of un-certainty might be expected to develop in this environment. Therefore,

it is not only necessary that the innovator provides sufficient infor-mation about his activities but essential that he is informed about theclimate of opinion in such groups and to evaluate the status of the re-lationships. This is especially necessary in order to anticipate changes

28Esman, op. cit. p. 29

31.

or problems and to be better prepared to deal with them. In the case of

CEP, Model Cities withdrawal of funds came as a surprise to Dr. Moore.Funds had been forthcoming through the Board according to the plans forthe second action year, but when they were cut off, Model Cities officialsstated that the plan had been to fund CEP as a demonstration project ona one-year basis only. Had the interactions between the two organizationsbeen more frequent and more informative, it is possible that the situation

might have been less contradictory and confusing. The funds might havebeen cut anyway, but Dr. Moore at least might have been better prepared,and a crisis situation would not necessarily have evolved. The use of a

few staff members to act as special liaisons with the major linkagesmight have proven advantageous. The issues mentioned above point tothe extensive tasks and responsibilities of the leader in building anorganization.

It is possible to distinguish between two types of leaders:"(a) the initiators--persons who are actively engaged in the formulationof the doctrine and program of the institution, and 01 the executors--persons who direct the operation of the institution."2 During the

history of CEP, Dr. Moore has assumed both of these leadership functionsand has demonstrated an independent and visible leadership style. He has

been the prime developer of theories and design and has trained staff andsupervised lab operations. His role of academic entrepreneur has includedthe mobilization of financial resources and the attempt to bring togethergrassroot leaders and upper echelon groups. In this way, he has built up

an extensive network of diffuse linkages in the community. Support from

the "established" sector manifested itself, for example, in wide mediacoverage of CEP activities and in financial contributions from large pri-vate foundations. Parents of Letche children expressed their involvementand support through their concrete actions during the crisis period in1972 when the lab closed. Strong and visible leadership to developpositive relations with these segments was essential for the program'sviability, especially as cooperation from some black leaders was lacking.This was partly due to their resentment agiOnst Moore's direct and in-dependent action in the community. Thus, D.. Moore has had to playseveral roles as director of CEP. He percei..,s his academic work role

as having been limited due to the required administrative and manage-ment tasks. Dealings with tile large bureaucratic organizations such asthe Board and an unstable organization such as Model Cities naturallyproduced difficulties and misunderstandings. Concomitant frith univer-sities' encouragement to channel their resources into the community,support would have to be furnished to those faculty members who offertheir expertise in community programs. The aid of a strong and flex-ible organization in providing staff for budget management, progressreport expediting and other administrative functions could have provenhelpful to Dr. Moore, especially considering CEP's complex fundingstructure.

Consistent with Model Cities objectives to involve residentsin programs in their communities, altogether ten indigenous parapro-fessionals were hired and trained in the labs. They were a valuable

29 Jiri Nehnevajsa, "Methodological Issues in Institution Building Re-Search," in J.W. Eaton (ed.), 22. cit., p. 31.

32.

addition to the program and provided an important link with the community.Although one of the important aspects of CEP was Dr. Moore's emphasis onthe staff's upgrading and continuation of their education, he felt thatthe training of as many as seven paraprofessionals at one time was a demand-ing task. The inclusion of the paraprofessionals was seen as a positivefeature by the Board. However, in a situation where staff training requireslarge investments (which often is the case with innovation programs) itsrelationship to the program's primary output has to be evaluated realistic-ally.

With regard to the training of staff for CEP, better communicationand joint planning between CEP and the Board would have been necessary. It

seems that during the last year of program operation, each party assumedstaff training for the future of the program to be the responsibility ofthe other. The training of one or more public school teachers to work inthe program might have provided not only valuable staff, but also a naturallink with the schools and the regular classroom. This was thought of asa possibility by the Board's Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum andInstruction, but it was never discussed with Dr. Moore.

Our analysis has revealed the complexity of problems and issueswhich evolved with CEP's transition into the community. Relating thisprocess to the notion of institution-building (see p. 15), Dr. Moore (1)

planned, structured, and guided and organization which (2) embodiedchanges in values, functions, and technologies and which establishedand -..rotected new normative relationships and action patterns. The thirdelement, that of obtaining support and complementarity in the environmentseems not to have been sufficiently realized during the five years ofoperations for the program to be institutionalized as a University "outreach"project integrated in public schools.

It is possible to point to ways in which Dr. Moore might havefacilitated the implementation of the program in the schools; however,support, especially with administrative tasks, would have been needed.The responsibility of the Board of Education was to be the vehicle forthe institutionalization of CEP. However, it appears that mutuallyunmet and perhaps incompatible expectations, administrative snarls, in-sufficient communication and joint long-term planning impeded effectivecooperation between the Board and CEP. Our analysis suggests that ifUniversity "outreach" programs are to be implemented in the less con-trolled and more complex environment of the community, more care mustbe exercised by all parties in planning and implementation.

3Z0 .

so so

stf 0 RIP4fakt

APPENDICES

33.

APPENDIX I

Explication of Theories Relating ToThe Clarifying Environments Program*

Dr. Moore works within the general framework of problem-solvingand social interaction. Historically, he sees man as b -ing with con-siderable powers of abstraction who has developed models of society'smost serious recurrent problems that have helped orient him in hisworld and enabled hit to deal with it. These "folk models" includepuzzles, games of chance, games of strategy and aesthetic objects,and they are not so much taught as they are learned, with consider-able pleasure, too, in a playful, non-threatening settirg.

That certain "games," e.g., roulette and poker, can be consideredmodels of serious activity is indicated by the existence of probabil:.tytheory and the theory of games of strategy. If folk models as abstrac-tions of life's serious matters play a role in the socialization process,then Dr. Moore finds it reasonable to assume that they could also play animportant role in the development of social personality. For example,the participant in the folk models or games takes a specific stance orperspective with each one. In a puzzle he controls the action and thustakes the agent perspective. A game of chance forces him into the pas-sive role or patient perspectice. In games of strategy he must be ableto see himself as his opponent does, adopting the reciprocal perspective.And in appreciating aesthetic objects, the viewer must evaluate or judge,taking the referee's perspective.

A socialized human being will probably employ all four of these per-spectives in problem-solving, examining a given problem from several per-spectives. His skill in problem-solving may very well be related to hisability to adopt these different perspectives singly or in a variety ofcombinations.

Dr. Moore believes that if societies find folk models (and theuse of different perspectives implicit in them) so successful in teachingmembers about serious matters, these models and the rules whici governtheir being learned may have some important things to tell us about edu-cating young.

The first three principles upon which Dr. Moore has designed hiseducational settings are directly related to the notion of folk modelsand the rules which govern learning them. The fourth principle isbased upon the need for a new dynamic folk model that will inculcatethe intellectual flexibility necessary to cope with a rapidly changingsociety.

The Perspectives Principle: The underlying assumptions on which CEPoperates is that a learner can learn more rapidly and deeply if whateveris to be learned can be appLoached from as many perspectives and combina-

*This section was written by Susan Smerd of CEP and edited by LivaJacoby

34.

tions thereof as possible. Concomitantly, a learning environment willbe more powerful if it lets the learner start off with whatever per-spective he begins with and then allows him to shift from one to another.

In a clarifying environment, it is recognized that children do nothave a short attention span but rather a short perspective Tan. Thetraditional classrooms Lake place in a learning environment in which theteacher is usually the agent and the learner generally the patient. Inthe CEL where the process is analyzed from the perspectives point ofview, it is seen that learning entails listening and reading (patient-hood), speaking and writing (agency), determining whom the audience willbe before one writes or speaks (agent-reciprocal) or distinguishing amongvarious sources of messages that come to one (patient-reciprocal). Thetwo latter cases require looking at one's behavior from someone else'spoint of view.

To teach children to distinguish among the various targets of theirmessages and discriminate among the sources of messages that come, thetape recorder is used extensively. A child has the opportunity to typemessages he sends and that others, such as the booth assistants, sendhim. The most complex perspective, that of referee, is practiced whena child evaluates his own work. If, for example, he cannot hear whathe has spoken into the tape recorder, he will have to realize the needto speak more clearly. He has judged his own wcrk and realized he hasnot met certain criteria. In order to become referees in regard to theoverall ,:ommunicatim process, not just as it is relate to themselves,the children are given the task of publishing a neuzp.:per. In this waythey not only use their communication skills, but they have the oppor-tunity to set critical standards suitable to their intended target oraudience. In general, Dr. Moore believes that adopting different per-spectives leads to learning which is complex and durable.

The Autotelic Principle: Dr. Moore believes that the learning ofskills can best be done in an environment in which the learner is affordedphysical and psychological safety so that the learning can be enjoyed forits own sake. The child is given an opportunity in the laboratory to ex-plore the environment in the absence of significant adults, e.g., parents.teachers, so that he is under no pressure t) perform for anyone but him-self.

The booths in which he works are designed for privacy and are com-pletely enclosed except for a one-way mirror above the level of the childfor supervisory purposes. One of the tools used, the Talking Typewriter,invented by Dr. Moore, is carefully designed to ensura the child's safetyso that it is unnecessary to have a booth assistant with him. This en-hances the child's sense of privacy and freedom. Parents, though invitedto observe the Lab, are not allowed to watch their own children and do notreceive reports about their children's progress. The rules are simpleand help define the environment as autotelic. First, a child does nothave to come. Second, he may leave when he wishes. Since children tendto believe what other children tell them, the oldsters are asked to ex-plain and show the Lab to the newcomers and to explain the rules to them.

Not all learning activities should be made autotelic, but cuttainlythose should in which the complex symbolic skills are being newly acquired.At this point in the education process learning takes place best in a

35.

playful environment, although later efforts should be subject to thereal risks of competition. The child who has the opportunity to learnthe basic skills in an autotelic environment before he must test him-self in serious competition will begin to exhibit a high degree of self-motivation and confidence in his ability. He will be less anxious about

:finding the "correct" answer and more eager to discover the interestingproblem.

The Productive Principle: One thing is considered more productivethan another if it has properties that permit the learner to reasonthings out for himself. For example, an ideographic system of writingsuch as Chinese is less productive than an alphabetic system. For ex-ample, in English there is a code which, once understood, allows thelearner to write what is spoken and read what is written.

This principle invites a careful examination of the code which isto be broken so that spoken language can be related to written language.In fact, the symbols we use to denote the sounds we make are less thanadequate. The twenty-six letter alphabet is overworked.

One method employed at the Lab that does make the most of the re-lationship of the alphabet to the sounds of the language entails spell-ing a word quickly for the child. Children are encouraged to spellwords out loud, and it is interesting how often the spoken letters con-jure up the sound of the whole word.

The Personalization Principle: This principle has two conditions:(1) The responsive condition: The environment must be one that is re-sponsive to the learner's activities. It should permit him to explorefreely, giving him a chance to solve a problem. It provides rapid feed-back to the learner about the results of his actions. It allows thelearner to work at his own pace and is s., structured that a learner is

likely to make interrelated discoveries about the problem under inves-tigation.

Dr. Moore's talking typewriter is designed to meet these conditions.Its operation alloys the learner to explore the symbols and conventionsof English orthographic system: upper and lower case, punctuation, left-to-right and top-to-bottom conventions. It provides a voice so the learnercan explore the relationship between spoken and written language. If alearner types DOG the machine can be programmed to speak the letters andthe word in response, thereby providing Immediate feedback to the learner.The machine will not respond to another act of typing until the connectionbetween the first typed letter of word and its spoken equivalent is madeclear.

The Talking Typewriter, unlike the machines in programmed learningsystems which are constructed mainly for drill, allows the learner todiscover relations. The child's fingers are color-coded to match thekeys so by striking the right keys with the right fingers he will learncorrect fingering. The upper and lower case keys have finger lightswhich can be turned on or off or made to blink and which signal the twobasic states of the typewriter, zncouraging a learner to be aware ofthe distinction by himself as he manipulates the typewriter.

36.

In order for the learner to make a series of interconnected dis-coveries, the machine can be made to change the "rules of the game."For example, after a child has had free range of the typewriter andhas learned the names of the letters, the supervisor, by means of re-mote control, can confront the learner with a more challenging problem,such as matching specific letters on the keyboard with a word flashedon the screen of the typewriter. To encourage discovery it should beup to the learner to realize something has changed and to work out the"new rules" of the game. (2) The reflexive condition: Learning isseen as more rapid and thorough if the learner can see himself aslearner. Future learning is made easier if a learner can understandhow he goes about doing it. Athletic coaches have made more use ofreflexive devices in instruction than have classroom teachers, usingfilms of the athletes' performances as teaching devices. In a Clari-fying Environment, video tapes are made of a learner's performanceand are used to give a learner an understanding of himself as learnerover time, so that he can see himself adopting the various perspectivesand begin to learn how to learn.

Another reflexive device has been recently added to the ClarifyingEnvironment Laboratories: The Picturephone. This small apparatus re-s2mbles a portable television set with an invisible receiver above thescreen. Two people communicating via the Picturephone can see eachother or, if they choose, themselves as they are seen by the other. In

this way, the Picturephone allows each person to become aware of his owninteractional behavior, a feature which, according to Dr. Moore, presentsvery important research opportunities for studying the nature of people'sself-image. Used as a teaching tool, it meets the "reflexive condition"by permitting the pupil to view himself as a learner and thus gain know-ledge about his own learnir4 process. Moreover, Picturephone service isemployed by Dr. Moore as a supervisory tool in the labs. This is partof and particular to CEP and Dr. Moore believes that "in the realm ofsupervision . . . the Picturephone set may find its most fruitful appli-cation in the educational field."1 This statement refers to the veryessential idea of Dr. Moore's, mentioned earlier, about the use of thePicturephone "as a supervisory tool to guarantee the quality of the in-novative educational techniques."2

10.K. Moore, "A Warm Medium of Communication," in Bell TelephoneMagazine, March-April, 1972.

2Ibid.

37.

APPENDIX 11

The Use of the Institution-Building Modelfor University-Urban Intirface Research

An overall research framework was deemed necessary for the UUIPresearch in order to compare findings across program areas and to pullthe many pieces of separate research projects into an integrated whole.

The UUIP research staff's decision to use the institution-buildingframework was based on three major assets of the model. (1) The assump-tions and theorems underlying the model are compatible with the philo-sophy of the University-Urban Interface Program. (2) The variablesfocused upon in the model are of a universal nature and can be appliedto the varied projects which UUIP was assessing. And (3), several ofthe original developers of the institution - building model are associatedwith the University of Pittsburgh and were available for consultation.

The Assumptions of the Institution-Building Model

An institution, such as the University of Pittsburgh, is establishedto fulfill needs of a society. When an institution no longer fulfills theneeds adequately or is challenged to fulfill additional needs not hereto-fore undertaken, new ways or innovations are developed to meet those needs.How the University can respond to the demands for more involvement in theplight of the city was the subject of UUIP research. Although there weremany demands for leadership roles for University involvement, the majorityseemed to feel the University should work with the community not for thecommunity. This is the explicit philosophy behind the I-B model.

This concept of development assistancerepresents a clear-cut break with theconcept of charity which involves a quitedifferent approach 'co help-giving.Charitywas a strong element in the precursors ofmodern development administration - themissionaries. Many of them went abroadprimarily to do good deeds, while meet-ing their need to save the souls of per-sons whom they regarded as less fortunate......in return for acceptance of their creed,missionaries were willing to give giftsin resources, skills, Modern aid...is given to a social system bydevelopment of new organizations whichcan perform innovative functions affect-many people. (Eaton,1972:139)

38.

In UUIP research efforts, the University is viewed as a resource ratherthan a charitable organization.

Innovative efforts can be developed within the existing institutionor planned outside of the institution. These innovative activities maybecome passing fads or may be "institutionized", either in the form ofsome new organization or as a routine way of operating within the parentinstitution. The institution-building (I-B) model focuses on the elementsof organizational process that must be considered when introducing a

planned change into a system.

While I-B is not a universal model ofsocial change, it does apply to innumerablesituations in contemporary societies in which(1) change agents, usually enjoying some mea-sure of offical sponsorship...impress theirgoals on society; (2) ....the proposedinnovation must be induced ...not coerced;(3) formal organizations are employed as themedia or vehicles through which change agentsdevelop the technical capacities and thenormative commitment needed to guide, sus-tain, and protect the intended innovations.(Esman in Eaton, 1972:25)

The model has been largely applied to change in underdeveloped countries.However, the generic nature of the major variables of the model make it auseful model for the guidance or study of more established institutions.This use of the model has, to the present, been largely untapped. Themodel also has been considered more for guidance of social planners andpractitioners of change rather than those standing apart to monitor anattempted change. The UUIP research staff decided, however, that theutility of the model in , at the least, aiding the systematizing of copiousdata being amassed in its project could outweigh the lack of experiencein using the model to analyze induced change in an established Americaninstitution and for purely research purposes.

A principle theorem of institutionbuilding is that new service programs aremost likely to become adopted .... when theyare a part of an organized or patterned wayof doing things ....(Eaton, 1972:139)

This institutionalization aspect of planned innovations was of particularinterest to the UUIP research focus, and led to application of the I-Bmodel as a framework for the project. Some of the research questions were(1) what kind of innovative programs introduced within the Universitybecame a part en accepted University patterns of activity; (2) what appearsto make the difference in the success or failure of a project; (3) andwhat is the relationship between a university-based project and the com-munity with which it interacts?

39.

Nehnevajsa gives the following tests of institutionality: (Eaton, 1972:14 )

(1) An organization's ability tosurvive.

(2) Extent to which an innovativeorganization comes to be viewed by itsenvironment to have intrinsic value, tobe measured operationally be such indicesas its degree of autonomy and its influenceon other institutions.

(3) The extent to which an inno-vative pattern in the new organizationbecomes normative for other social unitsin the larger social system.

None of the innovative programs which were studied by UUIP hadspecifically set out to use the I-B model as a guide for organizationbuilding. The use of the I-B model for UUIP research, then, becomes oneof applying the concepts for an analysis of the programs, apart fromany role in the implementation of those programs.

The Variables of the Model

The model focuses on seven basic issues in the development of aninstitution: the goals and doctrines; the programs; leadership; per-sonnel; resources; organization or internal structure; and linkageswith the external environment.* Each of these issues is viewed from threeperspectives or mappings. The "blueprint" mapping focuses on the plansas stated in organization charts, budgets, program specifications, orstated goals. The second mapping, operations, calls for data concerningwhat is actually happening as the attempt is made to carry out the blue-prints. The third focus is "image" mapping, which looks at the perceptionsthat relevant constituencies have about the seven issues. The emphasison the three mappings make the I-B model especially useful for UUIP researchbecause the purpose was to find out not only what the University is doingin terms of university-community relations, but how people perceive thatuniversity action.

*There are several variations of the institution-building model and mostof the recent discussions subsume "personnel" under resources or internalstructure. However, UUIP research found it more useful to considel per-sonnel as a separate issue.

40,

Institution-Building Variables

Blueprint orrmative Ma in

ActualOperating Ma.ppin Image Ma. in

Goals and DoctrineProgramsLeadershipPersonnelResourcesOrganization or

Internal StructureLinkages

The first six variables call for data concerning the properties ofthe program which is the target of the investigation. Each of these sixvariables call for three types of mapping. The UUIP staff formulatedwork sheets which facilitated keeping track of data relevant to eachcell of the variable matrix and the time period of a particular state ofany of these variables. :see next page)

The first row deals with data about the goals and doctrine of theinnovative programs. This data for the blueprint mapping was usuallyavailable through the goal specifications stated in a funding proposalor in a brochure or other official hand-out paper which gave the purposeof the organization. These same documents also usually yielded statementswhich gave clues as to the ideology supporting the program. The cellcalling for "actual goal" was used for information about aspects of thegoal being implemented as indicated by resource allocation, statementsby program implementors, or in progress reports. The images of the goalwere assessed by interviews of persons both within and outside of theprogram.

The leadership of a program has been shown to be crucial in manystudies of development. The blueprint mapping used by UUIP was often takenfrom job descriptions or by interviews of those with the authority to hirea new director. The research staff's assessment of the personality char-acteristics of a leader was included as part of the operations mapping;this information was gathered through direct observation or through in-terpretation of events. Other people's view of the particular leader wasconsidered image mapping.

Although the I-B model often includes "personnel" as part of the"resources", for the university setting the analysis of personnel was moreuseful as a separate category. For example, several of the projectsstudied trained paraprofessionals and graduate students. The relationsbetween these two types of personnel was often central to program problemsneeding solution. Also, th divisions in perception:, of university rolesbetween administrators, faculty, students, alumni, trustees, and otherpublics was more than a resource related situation.

The program itself was described in proposals of offical meitbranda,but often upon participant observation was different than the blueprint.Most of the image mapping for these program variables consisted of state-

1

INSTITUTION BUILDING WORK SHEET

Area of Description:

Time of Description: Blueprint or Normative Mapping

Specified

Goals

Ideological

Doctrine

Programs

Leadership

Personnel

Actual Operating Mapping

----------

5Resources

6Organization

Or

Internal

Structure

Name:

Iate Writtcn:

'maze 1.:appirg

1+2.

ments from "outsiders" as to what they thought the program was doing.

The resource categories were heavily laden with funding data, asthis became the crucial problem in most of the UUIP observed programs.However, the apparent priority given a program by the University wasalso assessed through the kind and amount of space and materials allottedto a program.

The internal structure of a project proved to be particularly com-plex to follow because formal organization charts were not only out ofdate, but rarely reflected actual practice or informal networks. Be-

cause all of the UUIP projects were interacting with many University de-partments and community groups, the organization was complex, often exper-imental and ever-changing. Much of the decision-making and implementationwas done through informal processes which were very difficult to trace.

search.

The linkages are a major thrust of the I-B model and of UUIP re-

Change agents must both (a) buildtechnically viable and socially effec-tive organizations which can be vehiclesfor innovation, and (b) manage relation-ships (linkages) with other groups onwhom they depend for complementariesand support and whose behavior they areattempting to influence. Building via-

ble organizations and managing theirlinkages are closely interrelatedaspects of a single institution-buildingprocess. (Esman in Eaton, 1972:25)

In order to begin to understand the effect of these community relationson the institutionalization of any program, the nature and history of thelinkages between program and the larger University and those outside of theUniversity became of paramount concern.

The I-B model distinguishes between four types of linkages. Each

of the types describes a kind of relationship between the target programand external organizations or groups.

Enabling linkages refer to those bodies which have control over theprogram in the form of allocation of resources and decision-making authoritywhich directly relate to the facilitation of the program. In UUIP researchthis type of linkage includes funding agencies, the Chancellor's office.and often, in a less direct way, state and federal policy makers.

The functional linkages include those which constrain or supportproject activity, such as departmental faculty, neighborhood organizations,and competing programs. Katz describes this type of linkage as "encom-passing the flows of resources and products necessary for carrying on thesystems activities ...". (Eaton, 1972:157)

43.

The normative linkages deal with values, such as what do certain

constituencies expect of the University and the specific programs; what

roles are compatible with accepted customs; what constraints are placed

upon the institution by laws? Some of this type of data was gathered

through surveys of University groups, alumni, and the general public.

r'her material was gathered through image mapping data which implied

accepted norms and values.

The diffuse linkages include the many other sources of support of

opposition which may not he directly linked to the program but nevertheless

have an impact. This category would include the local news media and

public opinion information. Diffuse linkages often served as the mis-

cellaneous category when an item did not seem to really fit in one of the

other definitions.

The research task requires identification of specific patterns of

interdependence. With the identification of linkages, consideration must

then be given to the actual and possible impacts which change in the

linkage relationships might make upon the institution building process.

A final task is to determine the impact which intra-organizational adapt-

ations might have upon the nature of the linkages. (Nehnevajsa, n.d.)

44.

References

Eaton, J. W. (ed.). Institution Building and Development: From Conceptsto Application. Beyerly Hills: Sage Publications, Inc., 1972.

Esman, Milton J. The Institution Building Concepts--An Interim Appraisal.(Inter-University Research Program in Institution Building publicationof the Research Center Headquarters, University of Pittsburgh),March, 1967.

Esman, Milton J. and Hans C. Blaise. Institution Building Research: TheGuiuing Concepts. (Inter-University Research Program in InstitutionBuilding publication of the Research Center Headquarters, Universityof Pittsburgh), February, 1966.

Kilmer, Gary. The SCP in Terms of the Institution Building Model.(unpublished manuscript). University of Pittsburgh, March, 1973.

Nehnevajsa, Jiri. Institution Building: Elements of a Research Orientation.University of Pittsburgh, no date.

Nehnevajsa, Jiri. Methodological Issues in Institution-Building Research.(unpublished working paper), March, 1964.

145.

REFERENCES

Linda M. Burns and 0. K. Moore. "Academic Performance and Children'sPerceptions," in Academic Competence and Self Esteem. An evaluation ofthe Pittsburgh Clarifying environments Project in the Hill District, PartI, September, 1972.

M. Esman. "The Elements of Institution Building," Chapter 1 in J. W.Eaton (ed.), Institution Building Development: From Concr s to Applica-

tion. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1972. Originally published inM. Esman and H. Blaise, Institution-Building Research - The Guiding Con-cepts, (mimeo), 1966.

E. Krech. Evaluation of the Clarif in: Environments Pro ect, Pitts-burgh Public Schools, Office of Research. July, 1971.

Learning Research and Development Center. Basic Program Plan. Spring,

1972.

Model Cities Agency. Outline of Four-Year Comprehensive EducationPlan, (mimeo), 1971.

O. K. Moore. "A Warm Medium of Communication," in Bell TelephoneMagazine. March-April, 1972.

O. K. Moore. Autotelic Responsive Environments and Exceptional Child-ren. Report issued by the Responsive Environments Foundation, Inc., Hamden,Connecticut, 1963. Also in J. Hellmuth (ed.). The Special Child in Century

21. Seattle: Special Child Publications of the Sequin School, Inc., Ind.,1964; and O. J. Harvey (ed.). Experience, Structure and Adaptability. New

York: Springer, 1966.

O. K. Moore. "Autotelic Responsive Environments and the Deaf," inAmerican Annals for the Deaf, 1965. 110, 604-614. (b)

O. K. Moore. "Description of the Lower Hill District Clarifying En-vironments Project," in Academic Competence and Self-Esteem. An evalua-tion of the Pittsburgh Clarifying Environments Project in the Hill Dis-trict, Part I. September, 1972.

O. K. Moore. From Tools to Interactional Machines. New approaches toindividualizing instruction. Report of a conference to mark the dedicationof Ben D. Wood Hall. May 11, 1965. Princeton, New Jersey: EducationalTesting Service, 1965. (a) Also in J. W. Childs (ed.). Instructional Tech-nology: Readings. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1968 (in press).

0. K. Moore & S. B. Anderson. "Modern Logic and Tasks for Experimentson Problem - Solving Behavior," in Journal of Psychology, 1954, 38, 151-160. (a)

O. K. Moore. "On Responsive Environments. New Directions in Individ-ualizing Instruction," in Proceedings of the Abington Conference, 1967. Ab-ington, Pennsylvania: The Abington Conference, 1968.

46.

O. K. Moore. "Problem-Solving and the Perception of Persons, - "- in R.

Tagiuri & L. Petrullo (eds.). Person Perception and Interpersonal Behavior.Palo Alto, California: Stanford University Press, 1968, pp. 131-150.

O. K. Moore and A. R. Anderson. "Some Principles for the Design ofClarifying Educational Environments," in Chapter 10 in D. Goslin, (ed.).Handbook of Socialization Theory and Research. Chicago, Illinois: Rand

McNally and Company, 1969.

0. K. Moore & A. R. Anderson. "Some Puzzling Aspects of Social Inter-action," Review of Metaphysics, 1962, 15, 409-433. (a) Also in J. H. Cris-well, H. Solomon & P. Suppes (eds.). Mathematical Methods in Small GroupProcesses. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1962. Pp.

232-249.

O. K. Moore.in Quality Controlfying Environments

O. K. Moore.Technology, 1972.

O. K. Moore and A. R. Anderson. "The Responsive Environments Project,"in R. D. Hess & R. M. Baer (eds.). Early Education. Chicago, Illinois:

Aldine, 1968.

"Statement Concerning Evaluation and Supervision Problems,"and Self-Esteem. An evaluation of the Pittsburgh Clari-Project in the Hill District, Part II A. December, 1972.

"The Clarifying Environments Program," in Educational

Jiri Nehnevajsa. "Methodological Issues in Institution Building Re-search," in J. W. Eaton (ed.), 22. cit., p. 81.

Peat, Marwick & Mitchell and Company. Evaluation of Educational Pro-gram, Phase I. For Pittsburgh Model Cities Program. October, 1971.

"Report of the Chancellor, 1970," in Pitt Magazine, No. 4. (Winter,

1970.)

Susan Smerd. "Advanced Educational Technology and Attitudes of theInner-City High School Students," in Quality Control and Self-Esteem. Anevaluation of the Pittsburgh Clarifying Environments Project in the HillDistrict, Part II A. December, 1972.

Transcript of Outreach Project Seminar. University-Urban Interface?rogram. November 5, 1971.

G. Wesley. Clarifying Environments Project. Pittsburgh Public Schools,Division of Research, 1972.